Enforcement of the 14th Admendment, Article 3

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

This is an excellent historical article showing the history of when it was used, and how it was enforced with the deciding body.

It also makes clear that never has a conviction been required.  This is b/c it's a civil matter that only involves disqualification and does not put into jeopardy one's life, liberty, or property.  So, the threshold is by a preponderance of evidence ONLY to prove liability, and not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal matter that results in a conviction.  

If it was a Senator accused then the Senate decided, if it was a Representative, then the House of Reps decided, if it was an elected state official then the State's Supreme Court decided.  So if the person was a former President or VP, then who decides?  The SCOTUS or each 50 State's Supreme Court under their election laws?  This is what the SCOTUS will decide on Feb 8th.

This is some good historical educational stuff, take the time to learn it.  The link is posted below.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

[JustWinBaby]

I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!".  Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.

Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection.  However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection".  Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection. A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump. And apparently sedition and insurrection are separate and distinct charges.

So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection.  Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability.  The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).


The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election.  Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic.  And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted.  So there was some degree of due process.  Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.

[GMDino]

"just a group of tourists"
"peacefully protesting"

This is the definitive video of the Ashli Babbitt shooting.

So much to unpack here.

- The proximity to members of congress.
- The fear in the eyes of the young officers.
- The guy in the crowd reminding the officers that officers outside were wounded and they’d be too if the… pic.twitter.com/Y3cneT5g9m

— Tim Cool (@KaladinFree) January 6, 2024

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Belsnickel]

(01-06-2024, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!".  Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.

Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection.  However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection".  Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection. A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump. And apparently sedition and insurrection are separate and distinct charges.

So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection.  Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability.  The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).


The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election.  Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic.  And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted.  So there was some degree of due process.  Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.

Actually, the definition of insurrection according to pretty much everything I have read would reasonably and objectively point to what occurred three years ago as one. A riot is a violent action by a group of people. It becomes an insurrection when it is aimed at disrupting the government. So if you consider what happened on January 6th a riot, then you would have to consider it an insurrection because there is no doubt it was aimed at disrupting the government. If Trump aided in those actions and if the office of the POTUS is included in the section (which contextually would be the case if we look at it through an originalist lens), then the Constitution says he is disqualified from office. Your problem is with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, not those enforcing it.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(01-06-2024, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!".  Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.

Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection.  However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection".  Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection.  A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump.

So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection.  Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability.  The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).


The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election.  Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic.  And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted.  So there was some degree of due process.  Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.

Insurrection as defined: A violent uprising against an authority or government, or opposed by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.

So nope sorry, you're entirely wrong here. 

• Capitol police officers were maimed for life. They lost fingers, limbs, were blinded for life with bear spray, and beaten with baseball bats and various other objects.  Officer Sicknik died and others had heart attacks from being tased--- So there is plenty of violence.
•  The fake elector's scheme in and of itself is enough evidence to call it a failed coup aka an insurrection.  
• Trump told the crowd to go down to the Capitol and fight like hell and that he'd be with them.  Trump told them this with the purpose of stopping Congress from their official duties of counting and certifying the electoral college ballots.-- That's an attempt to hinder or delay the execution of the Constitutional election law of the United States.  
• Then when Trump was asked by Kevin McCarthy and Mike Pence to put a stop to it, he refused--- That's called, "Giving aid and Comfort to an insurrection." Also, another violation of the 14A, Article 3. 
• Congress did delay the counting and certifying of electoral college ballots due to the violence of said insurrection.
  

• People were charged and convicted of obstruction of Congress,  and also seditious conspiracy to overthrow the gov't of the United States as a direct and proximate result of Trump's actions on Jan 6th. 
  

So again,  no one needs to be charged or convicted of insurrection, it just has to be by a preponderance of the evidence, and there's plenty of that in the aforementioned events.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-06-2024, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!".  Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.

Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection.  However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection".  Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection.  A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump.  And apparently sedition and insurrection are separate and distinct charges.

So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection.  Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability.  The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).


The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election.  Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic.  And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted.  So there was some degree of due process.  Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.

So what do you call it when the leader of a government tries to illegally remain in power?

[Dill]

(01-06-2024, 02:57 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mockingly said "LOL your guns are useless - the government has tanks!".  Yet, somehow, a few hundred rioters armed with a couple of guns, a few knives and a bunch of sign posts between them is an insurrection.

Yes, the language is pretty clear that one need not be convicted, or even charged with, insurrection.  However, any reasonable and objective person knows that was a riot and nothing remotely close to an "insurrection".  Additionally, I don't believe ANYONE has been charged or convicted with insurrection.  A handful were charged with sedition, but I've not seen any links or evidence of communication or coordination with Trump.  And apparently sedition and insurrection are separate and distinct charges.

So while Trump doesn't need to be charged or convicted, certainly SOMEONE would have if there actually was an insurrection.  Otherwise we're just back to making up words or changing the definition to suit an agenda, which should surprise no one. Just calling it an insurrection doesn't make it so, much less establishing Trump's participation or culpability.  The entire thing is almost as ridiculous as calling the border crisis an insurrection and saying it disqualifies Biden (which, yes, was proposed mockingly to highlight the absurdity of all this).

The correct and lawful remedy was impeachment over his words and actions after the election.  Changing the definition of words and then using courts (or less) to boot him off ballots is, sadly, pretty un-democratic.  And while impeachment is not a criminal proceeding or exactly an impartial jury, there remains the problem Trump WAS impeached (a.k.a "charged") and acquitted.  So there was some degree of due process.  Which is very problematic for all this, unless you're a banana republic.

Looks like you are wholly unaware of the "Green Bay Sweep" -- the three-pronged coordination between the RNC in seven states to supply false slates of electors, the pressure on Pence to reject valid lists, and the crowd organized to pressure Pence and intervene in the lawful process, all controlled from the WH. 

You are the third person in this forum to falsely suppose the insurrection charge is simply based on the rioters intents and actions.

What is "problematic" about Trump's acquittal is that it was done in the face of massive evidence of insurrection, by what has now become a regime party, intent on protecting its leader from the law. That's what makes us a banana republic, if we've become one--not the people upholding rule of law.

[*pally*]

Impeachment, convicted or otherwise, does not absolve a person from criminal culpability. It is simply the political process to remove an officeholder from that position. There have been people who have been impeached without criminal charges, before conviction, or even before being criminally charged. To place any relevance of the political process into the criminal justice system is ridiculous. They serve 2 separate purposes and do not intertwine. A point the judges will remind Trump and his attornies of if they continue to claim double jeopardy

[GMDino]

It may never stop amazing me the people who "don't like" or "never liked" or who "aren't defending" P01135809 who then proceed to do exactly that.

[*pally*]

(01-07-2024, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It may never stop amazing me the people who "don't like" or "never liked" or who "aren't defending" P01135809 who then proceed to do exactly that.

but just for his economic policies

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-07-2024, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It may never stop amazing me the people who "don't like" or "never liked" or who "aren't defending" P01135809 who then proceed to do exactly that.

Who's doing that?  Inquiring minds and all.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-06-2024, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, the definition of insurrection according to pretty much everything I have read would reasonably and objectively point to what occurred three years ago as one. A riot is a violent action by a group of people. It becomes an insurrection when it is aimed at disrupting the government. So if you consider what happened on January 6th a riot, then you would have to consider it an insurrection because there is no doubt it was aimed at disrupting the government. If Trump aided in those actions and if the office of the POTUS is included in the section (which contextually would be the case if we look at it through an originalist lens), then the Constitution says he is disqualified from office. Your problem is with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, not those enforcing it.

Didn't read this one?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insurrection

"an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:"

There was no plan to take and maintain control with installing their own government.  The fact that it's even debateable if it's a riot or insurrection proves the point  It is an exceptional and complicated charge, and there are specific legal criteria and elements beyond the whim of someone parsing the definition of words.  That why NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.  

If it was actually an insurrection, why was NO ONE charged or convicted of it?  You don't think they would have done that, if there was any hope of success, to give this challenge a modicum of standing?  The election fraud and interference are just that - separate and distinct from insurrection.  And, unfortunately, not disqualifying.

This is nothing but a series of hailmary's - there are about 6 elements to this which nearly all seem pretty easily and likely to fail.  It would be nice if the "pro democracy" party would be a little less fascist with their political opponents.  And when the SCOTUS rightfully smacks this down, you can bet the "anti-fascist" party will renew cries to pack the court.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who's doing that?  Inquiring minds and all.

Exactly.  I simply don't believe in trampling Democracy to save us from the guy that threatens Democracy.  Like I said, this is all banana republic stuff.  There's something extremely problematic, and distasteful, when people who believe in the rule of law are disparaged as "Trump defenders" because they don't think bending the law and making shit up is the way to defeat Trump.

Trump should have been impeached, both times, if the Republicans weren't feckless.  But that is the only remedy available, because jailing or disqualifying political opponents is a very slippery slope.  But this is the kind of garbage the Left has been condoning when the "ends justify the means" that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

And the election fraud and interference should also be disqualifying, but it's not.  And the documents, too - Trump should be banned from having a security clearance and that, too, should be disqualifying.  Perhaps when the dust settles reasonable minds in Congress will encode crimes that are disqualifying.


I'll just end with the Dems were giddy with Trump running because he's been so good for them down ballot in the last two elections.  Until polling started showing Trump beating Biden.  I'll just keep hoping for a divided government because neither of these clown parties should run the country unilaterally.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-07-2024, 12:41 PM)pally Wrote: Impeachment, convicted or otherwise, does not absolve a person from criminal culpability.  It is simply the political process to remove an officeholder from that position.   There have been people who have been impeached without criminal charges, before conviction, or even before being criminally charged.  To place any relevance of the political process into the criminal justice system is ridiculous.  They serve 2 separate purposes and do not intertwine. A point the judges will remind Trump and his attornies of if they continue to claim double jeopardy

You miss the point.  Due process is foundational to the Constitution, and Trump can point to due process in the impeachment in which he was acquitted.  I mention that only to the people saying he doesn't need to be charged with insurrection, which is correct.  There's also debate about whether Section 3 is "self executing" and that it actually required Congressional action (which never happened).  The federal legislative branch, which should be the ultimate authority on a federal election, did not declare this an insurrection and acquitted Trump.  I don't think a state bench or legislator has the authority or standing to reject that finding and substitute their own interpretation.

People have not thought through what a potentially huge pandora's box this is.  Someone gives a fiery speech, and a whack job or handful of nuts, related to the speech or not, riot and then we disqualify that person without due process.  What about the guy that tried to assassinate Kavanaugh after all that fiery rhetoric when SCOTUS reversed Roe?  What about CHAZ and all those BLM riots when Dems were advocating to defund the police?

The problem is claiming a riot - in which NO ONE was charged with insurrection - disqualifies someone opens the door for all kinds of political shenanigans from which the founding fathers CLEARLY sought to prevent.  That's why a convicted felon can still run for POTUS, because the founding fathers want the voters to decide.  There is also another remedy - one the "party of Democracy" tried to promote in 2016 - that electors are not bound by the vote (in many states, at least, not sure of all the particulars) in order to save the voters from themselves.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2024, 06:30 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Exactly.  I simply don't believe in trampling Democracy to save us from the guy that threatens Democracy.  Like I said, this is all banana republic stuff.  There's something extremely problematic, and distasteful, when people who believe in the rule of law are disparaged as "Trump defenders" because they don't think bending the law and making shit up is the way to defeat Trump.

Trump should have been impeached, both times, if the Republicans weren't feckless.  But that is the only remedy available, because jailing or disqualifying political opponents is a very slippery slope.  But this is the kind of garbage the Left has been condoning when the "ends justify the means" that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

And the election fraud and interference should also be disqualifying, but it's not.  And the documents, too - Trump should be banned from having a security clearance and that, too, should be disqualifying.  Perhaps when the dust settles reasonable minds in Congress will encode crimes that are disqualifying.


I'll just end with the Dems were giddy with Trump running because he's been so good for them down ballot in the last two elections.  Until polling started showing Trump beating Biden.  I'll just keep hoping for a divided government because neither of these clown parties should run the country unilaterally.

So following the Constitution is now "banana republic stuff" and "twisting the law"?

Interesting take.

And I agree with Congress needing to pass some law to protect the country from someone else pushing the limits of what a POTUS can get away with even more..  I said so here.

Nonetheless I didn't name, or directly respond to a single person.  Yet two people felt I was talking about them.  Again, interesting.

[*pally*]

(01-07-2024, 06:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You miss the point.  Due process is foundational to the Constitution, and Trump can point to due process in the impeachment in which he was acquitted.  I mention that only to the people saying he doesn't need to be charged with insurrection, which is correct.  There's also debate about whether Section 3 is "self executing" and that it actually required Congressional action (which never happened).  The federal legislative branch, which should be the ultimate authority on a federal election, did not declare this an insurrection and acquitted Trump.  I don't think a state bench or legislator has the authority or standing to reject that finding and substitute their own interpretation.

People have not thought through what a potentially huge pandora's box this is.  Someone gives a fiery speech, and a whack job or handful of nuts, related to the speech or not, riot and then we disqualify that person without due process.  What about the guy that tried to assassinate Kavanaugh after all that fiery rhetoric when SCOTUS reversed Roe?  What about CHAZ and all those BLM riots when Dems were advocating to defund the police?

The problem is claiming a riot - in which NO ONE was charged with insurrection - disqualifies someone opens the door for all kinds of political shenanigans from which the founding fathers CLEARLY sought to prevent.  That's why a convicted felon can still run for POTUS, because the founding fathers want the voters to decide.  There is also another remedy - one the "party of Democracy" tried to promote in 2016 - that electors are not bound by the vote (in many states, at least, not sure of all the particulars) in order to save the voters from themselves.

I agree that this whole thing is walking a very fine line.  But in no way shape or form does a decision from the Legislative branch of government replace or prevent actions from the Judicial branch of government concerning the constitutionality of any topic and that includes what is meant by insurrection and the ballot

[Dill]

(01-07-2024, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: It may never stop amazing me the people who "don't like" or "never liked" or who "aren't defending" P01135809 who then proceed to do exactly that.

That's why I like to distinguish between Trump "supporters" and Trump "defenders."

The latter tend to represent themselves as "non partisan" while subsuming wide swaths of centrist and liberal politics under the rubric "leftist," Fox news style. 

E.g., while emphasizing how much they dislike Trump the person they nevertheless rush to defend his polices and blame the 
"leftist" media for "exaggerating" his bad behavior. They step up to empathize with and defend Trump supporters and their deluded, seditious
actions to the point of arguing that Trump should not be held legally accountable for his actions for fear of upsetting his followers. 

They have tremendous difficulty recognizing anything especially sinister and disqualifying in Trump's attempted autogolpe and his continued control of an
organized major political party and fervid support by millions.  No, "the left" is still the real problem for these "non-partisans." 

And that's what probably explains the strange, oblique angle through which they approach US politics--they cannot bring themselves to endorse
the P-grabber, but their politics are so right-wing, they just have to run interference when and wherever Trump's actions seem
to empower what they call "the left."  So we see them always attacking the attackers, while verbally distancing from MAGA.

They are "Independents" LOL not endorsing either side.

[Dill]

(01-07-2024, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There was no plan to take and maintain control with installing their own government.  The fact that it's even debateable if it's a riot or insurrection proves the point  It is an exceptional and complicated charge, and there are specific legal criteria and elements beyond the whim of someone parsing the definition of words.  That why NO ONE has been charged with insurrection.  

If it was actually an insurrection, why was NO ONE charged or convicted of it?  You don't think they would have done that, if there was any hope of success, to give this challenge a modicum of standing?  The election fraud and interference are just that - separate and distinct from insurrection.  And, unfortunately, not disqualifying.

This is nothing but a series of hailmary's - there are about 6 elements to this which nearly all seem pretty easily and likely to fail.  It would be nice if the "pro democracy" party would be a little less fascist with their political opponents.  And when the SCOTUS rightfully smacks this down, you can bet the "anti-fascist" party will renew cries to pack the court.

GEEZUS.  There was a PLAN TO THROW THE VOTE TO THE HOUSE. That would have meant "maintaining control" with the then-present government.  No need to "install" a new one.

This is only "debatable" in the sense, and for the same reasons, that some Republicans still debate whether the Capitol Breach was directed by the FBI or not. 

It is faulty logic to argue that if no one has been convicted of a crime one could not have been committed. Asking why there has been "NO ONE charged or convicted" of insurrection just illustrates how deeply you misrecognize the problem, the mismatch between the danger and our institutional/constitutional means of coping with it.

With the exception of those who lost standing and office for doing the right thing, you have an entire political party hindering investigations, and a massive
right wing news media effort to re-brand the insurrectionists as "patriots" and accountability as "weaponization"--thus framing accountability as merely
the effort of one party to get rid of a popular opponent by jailing him, as they do in banana republics. 

And that's the interpretation you appear to be pushing here and in the post immediately following, where you affirm "rule of law" to oppose accountability. 

The core of the issue, which you've yet to acknowledge, is whether Trump and cronies attempted to circumvent a legal election to remain in power. That his party "acquitted" him of wrongdoing is a part of the problem, why democracy is indeed at stake in the prosecution of Trump. That refusal to hold him accountable is precisely what undermines the rule of law by placing him above the law. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-07-2024, 07:38 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why I like to distinguish between Trump "supporters" and Trump "defenders."

You do neither.  You distinguish between people who agree with you and everyone else.  

Quote:The latter tend to represent themselves as "non partisan" while subsuming wide swaths of centrist and liberal politics under the rubric "leftist," Fox news style. 

E.g., while emphasizing how much they dislike Trump the person they nevertheless rush to defend his polices and blame the 
"leftist" media for "exaggerating" his bad behavior. They step up to empathize with and defend Trump supporters and their deluded, seditious
actions to the point of arguing that Trump should not be held legally accountable for his actions for fear of upsetting his followers. 

Quote:They have tremendous difficulty recognizing anything especially sinister and disqualifying in Trump's attempted autogolpe and his continued control of an
organized major political party and fervid support by millions.  No, "the left" is still the real problem for these "non-partisans." 

Alternatively, they just don't agree with you on every single point.

Quote:And that's what probably explains the strange, oblique angle through which they approach US politics--they cannot bring themselves to endorse
the P-grabber, but their politics are so right-wing, they just have to run interference when and wherever Trump's actions seem
to empower what they call "the left."  So we see them always attacking the attackers, while verbally distancing from MAGA.

They are "Independents" LOL not endorsing either side.

Insufferably smug and pedantic is no way to go through life, son.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2024, 07:38 PM)Dill Wrote: That's why I like to distinguish between Trump "supporters" and Trump "defenders."

The latter tend to represent themselves as "non partisan" while subsuming wide swaths of centrist and liberal politics under the rubric "leftist," Fox news style. 

E.g., while emphasizing how much they dislike Trump the person they nevertheless rush to defend his polices and blame the 
"leftist" media for "exaggerating" his bad behavior. They step up to empathize with and defend Trump supporters and their deluded, seditious
actions to the point of arguing that Trump should not be held legally accountable for his actions for fear of upsetting his followers. 

They have tremendous difficulty recognizing anything especially sinister and disqualifying in Trump's attempted autogolpe and his continued control of an
organized major political party and fervid support by millions.  No, "the left" is still the real problem for these "non-partisans." 

And that's what probably explains the strange, oblique angle through which they approach US politics--they cannot bring themselves to endorse
the P-grabber, but their politics are so right-wing, they just have to run interference when and wherever Trump's actions seem
to empower what they call "the left."  So we see them always attacking the attackers, while verbally distancing from MAGA.

They are "Independents" LOL not endorsing either side.

Spot on.

I too never said supporter, hell I didn't say defender. I said they say they say they are not defending him and then find a way to do just that.

They will accuse everyone else of being partisan, say "others" make accusations if you don't agree 100% and then claim to be above it all.  Generally responding with insults and nothing of substance.