Racicot wrong

Mark Racicot penned a long letter repetitiously trying to make a case that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president due to the 14th amendment  prohibiting “insurrectionists” from running for office.  

None of the myriad of charges against the former president mention the word insurrection.  But I suppose in Mr. Racicot’s opinion as a lawyer, being found guilty of or even charged with a crime is immaterial. 

In fact, the definition of insurrection is a violent uprising against a government or institution.  Though liberals especially the Democrat “insurrectionist-mongers” in Congress use the label incorrectly and ignore the many calls by their own to reverse two previous Republican presidential victories (Gore v. Bush; Clinton v. Trump) Mr. Racicot, who supported Biden in the 2020 presidential election, seems incapable of distinguishing a protest from an insurrection.  By the way, how well do you think your 2020 choice is doing?  Going to support and vote for him again in 2024? 

Did Racicot voice such strong anti-insurrection opinions when the violent George Floyd “mostly peaceful” demonstrators stormed, looted and burned a police precinct (I believe that is violence against an institution) harming fleeing officers?  Did he call for their arrest and prosecution?  Crickets!

 No, Mr. Racicot, you may have parlayed your political career into a cushy lobbying gig in Washington, using your political influence to the disadvantage of the people and in favor of big business, but you don’t get to interpret the Constitution . . . that will be up to the Supreme Court.  And I dare say they will likely see the issue of insurrection and the fourteenth amendment quite differently.

David Myerowitz

Columbia Falls