Re: BREAKING NEWS! Legal Scholars Confirm That Trump Is Ineligible To Run for President

[Skeeter]

In article <UBVpN.237113$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
says...
>
> On 1/17/2024 11:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
> > In article <hoTpN.26893$SyNd....@fx33.iad>, bond...@att.net says...
> >>
> >> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5...@dont-email.me>, patr...@protonmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
> >>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
> >>>> exceptions.
> >>>
> >>> None of which disqualify him.
> >>
> >> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
> >
> > Yet he's leading the polls.
>
> He's heading to prison.

Nope and you hate that.

[Skeeter]

In article <JZaqN.51026$Sf59....@fx48.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
says...
>
> On 1/18/2024 6:30 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uobbbg$5v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>, b...@panix.com says...
> >>
> >> Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
> >>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> Wrong again, Scout:
> >> |
> >> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> >> |
> >> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> >> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> >> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> >> | ...
> >> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
> >>
> >> |
> >> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> >> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> >> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> >> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> >> | ...
> >> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
> >>
> >> --bks
> >
> > But not Trump.
>
> No need. 14.3 doesn't require that.

Nothingburger.

[Skeeter]

In article <CicqN.70445$STLe...@fx34.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
says...
>
> On 1/18/2024 8:18 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uobgsm$748$1...@reader1.panix.com>, b...@panix.com says...
> >>
> >> Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> >>>> Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
> >>>>> convicted
> >>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong again, Scout:
> >>>

> >>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong

> >>>
> >>>> |
> >>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> >>>> |
> >>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> >>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> >>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> >>>> | ...
> >>>>
> >>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> |
> >>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> >>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> >>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> >>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> >>>> | ...
> >>>>
> >>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
> >>>

> >>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
> >>
> >> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
> >> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
> >> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
> >>
> >> --bks
> >
> > Still no insurrection charges against Trump.
>
> Not needed for disqualification under 14.3

Not happening or it already would have. You have nothing.

[Skeeter]

In article <WJiqN.257381$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, max....@lathymes.com
says...
>
> On 1/18/2024 9:32 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> Happening right now.

Nope. Sorry, you lose again.

[Skeeter]

In article <xhxqN.145931$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, air@vatican_.con says...
>
> On 1/19/2024 7:45 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uoe48d$36i11$2...@dont-email.me>, chine...@www.yahoo.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> NoBody wrote:
> >>>> A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist have
> >>>> NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
> >>
> >> Who says he is guilty of insurrection?
> >
> > Rudy
>
> Nope. I said he engaged in it. He did.

Nope. No charges, nothing.

[Skeeter]

In article <zgxqN.145930$yEgf....@fx09.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...

>
> On 1/19/2024 7:45 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <20240119093140.430a9397@Johnny>, joh...@invalid.net says...

> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:25:00 -0800
> >> Siri Cruise <chine...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>>> A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
> >>>>> leftist have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is
> >>>>> guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
> >>>
> >>> Who says he is guilty of insurrection?
> >>>
> >>

> >> DENVER ? A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald
> >> Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the
> >> U.S. Capitol.
> >>
> >> https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
> >
> > NPR =
>
> an excellent news source. That's right.

No charges, nothing.

[Skeeter]

In article <sTyqN.225606$7sbb....@fx16.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 1/19/2024 9:49 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <0cxqN.145928$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>> {snip}
> >>>>
> >>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh? How so?
> >>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>> to judicial review.
> >>>
> >>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
> >>
> >> None is needed.
> >
> > So you don't believe in rule of law.
>
> I do believe in it. 14.3 is part of the Constitution, and following it is
> following the rule of law. A criminal conviction is not needed for 14.3
> disqualification. This is settled.

Never gonna happen.

[pothead]

On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am...@earthlink.nut> wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

>> In article <5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>>>>>>>> under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
>>>>> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3.
>>>>> The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
>>>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
>>>>
>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
>>>> for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>
>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
>>> insurrection. It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
>>> convicted of statutory insurrection. Insurrection is not just a statutory crime
>>> ? it is a description of an event. The storming of Congress by Nazis on
>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection.
>>>
>>>> so there has never been a legal finding of facts on
>>>> this matter and
>>>
>>> That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
>>> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
>>>
>>>> How can you have an insurrection.. if no one has been shown to have engaged in
>>>> insurrection?
>>>
>>> People, including Trump, have been shown to have engaged in insurrection.
>>
>> No charges.
>
> False.
>
No charges for committing insurrection.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

[Skeeter]

In article <sGTqN.78749$CYpe....@fx40.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 9:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <eeTqN.116709$q3F7....@fx45.iad>,
> > anothe...@terrells.pals says...
> >>
> >> On 1/20/2024 7:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
> >>>>>>>>>> under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
> >>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>
> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
> >>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
> >>>> through incitement."
> >>>
> >>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?
> >>
> >> Not needed.
> >
> > Then why were the other people?
>
> Because powerful criminal cases were made against them, and they were found guilty.
>
> Powerful criminal cases *are* being prosecuted against Trump, and he will be
> found guilty and sent to prison, where he will die.

Why isn't Trump in jail now. You said he's guilty. They went to jail.
Why not him?

[Skeeter]

In article <UITqN.78751$CYpe....@fx40.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

> >>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
> >>>>>>>> under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
> >>>> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3.
> >>>> The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
> >>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
> >>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
> >>>
> >>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
> >>> for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>
> >> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
> >> insurrection. It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
> >> convicted of statutory insurrection. Insurrection is not just a statutory crime
> >> ? it is a description of an event. The storming of Congress by Nazis on
> >> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection.
> >>
> >>> so there has never been a legal finding of facts on
> >>> this matter and
> >>
> >> That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
> >> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
> >>
> >>> How can you have an insurrection.. if no one has been shown to have engaged in
> >>> insurrection?
> >>
> >> People, including Trump, have been shown to have engaged in insurrection.
> >
> > No charges.
>
> False.

No rape charges either.

[Skeeter]

In article <R0VqN.32819$9cLc...@fx02.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 11:00 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> That's a question. You should terminate a question with a question mark ? you
> know, one of these little thingies: '?'
>
> He's not in jail yet because he hasn't been tried and convicted yet. If he
> believed in his own innocence, he wouldn't be playing this delaying game. He
> doesn't want to go to trial because he knows he's guilty.

>
>
> > You said he's guilty.
>

> He is factually guilty. He has not yet been found legally guilty, but he will
> be. That makes you cry.

Yea and Rittenhouse was guilty also according to you.

[Skeeter]

In article <J1VqN.32820$9cLc...@fx02.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 11:01 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> Found liable for rape.

Nope.

[Skeeter]

In article <uKWqN.44751$U1cc....@fx04.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 11:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <5ZUqN.32817$9cLc...@fx02.iad>, l...@cap.con says...

> >> Irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the event *was* an insurrection.
> >> It was.

> >>
> >>> Plenty of other charges though.
> >>> Why would that be?
> >>

> >> Because seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice as long as
> >> the maximum sentence for insurrection. The maximum sentence for the former is 20
> >> years, versus only 10 for the latter. You could look it up. I have. Here's a
> >> helpful hint: the criminal code section number for seditious conspiracy is
> >> exactly one higher than that for insurrection. But I'm not going to tell you
> >> what they are. I don't go out of my way to help out a Nazi little person.
> >
> > So why isn't Trump in jail for seditious conspiracy?
>
> He's going to prison for his other election related crimes.

If they wanted him in jail and say he is guilty of "seditious
conspiracy" he would be in jail. They are only trying to keep him from
running because they know he will win.

[Skeeter]

In article <DKWqN.44752$U1cc...@fx04.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 11:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> > Yep.
>
> Yep.

Nope, no rape charges. No jail. You lose again.

[Skeeter]

In article <KKWqN.44753$U1cc....@fx04.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 11:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> Yeah, and he's going to prison. Yeah.

Yea and so was Rittenhouse.

HA HA HA

[Skeeter]

In article <zIXqN.245214$Wp_8....@fx17.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 2:04 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> He has to go to trial first. That's coming.

How come all the others have been jailed already?

[Skeeter]

In article <zJXqN.245215$Wp_8....@fx17.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 2:05 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> > Yep.
>
> Yep.

Proof?

[Skeeter]

In article <zKXqN.245216$Wp_8....@fx17.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/20/2024 2:06 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

Cowardly snipping noted. Funny story about that judge and her lover huh?

[Skeeter]

In article <lVwrN.296258$xHn7....@fx14.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 8:37 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <9zwrN.295260$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad...

> >>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
> >>>>>>>>>> under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
> >>>>>> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to
> >>>>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
> >>>>>> and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
> >>>>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
> >>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>>>
> >>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
> >>>

> >>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
> >>
> >> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison term
> >> of 20 years; insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Seditious
> >> conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > Of course, as long as you "win".
>
> No. It's irrelevant because 14.3 doesn't require it.

Like I said.

>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
> >>>

> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
> >>
> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
> >> statutory crime of insurrection.
> >
> > None or
>
> Irrelevant.

Why do you snip? If you are honest you would have no need.

>
> >>>
> >>>> Insurrection is not just a statutory crime ? it is a description of an event.
> >>>

> >>> We don't punish people because of an invented description.
> >>
> >> It's not invented.
> >
> > It's a description, not a crime.
>
> Insurrection is both a statutory crime and a description of an event.

Yet no one has been charged with it.

>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
> >>>>
> >>>> That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
> >>>> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
> >>>

> >>> I'm glad she has an opinion,
> >>
> >> An informed legal opinion.
> >
> > A biased opinion.
>
> No ? an informed, thoughtful legal opinion by a qualified judge.

Like Fani?
>
> >>
> >>> but without a criminal trial
> >>
> >> No. Section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require a criminal trial.
> >>
> >>> Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
> >>
> >> Her ruling was appealed to the Colorado supreme court, which upheld her finding
> >> regarding insurrection.
> >
> > and she still lost.
>
> She lost on her conclusion that the presidency is not covered by 14.3. Her
> conclusion that an insurrection occurred and that Trump engaged in it was
> upheld. She didn't lose on that.

He's still on the ballot.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
> >>
> >> That's false. We know the violent storming of the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an
> >> insurrection. This is settled.
> >
> > None.
>
> There was an insurrection. This is settled. It's the verdict of history.

Show us the convictions.

[Skeeter]

In article <fWwrN.296259$xHn7....@fx14.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 8:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <ezwrN.295268$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >>>> <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovf...@4ax.com:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

> >>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
> >>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
> >>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
> >>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
> >>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
> >>>>>>> through incitement."
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without charges
> >>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
> >>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
> >>>
> >>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
> >>
> >> None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
> >> disqualified, scooter.
> >
> > Were you there?
>
> It's a matter of public record.

Which you don't seem to have.
>
> >>
> >>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
> >>
> >> There were no pardons, scooter.
> >
> >

[Skeeter]

In article <8SwrN.229656$7sbb....@fx16.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 8:34 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7....@fx14.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe....@fx34.iad...

> >>>>> Was he indicted?
> >>>>
> >>>> The hearing was civil.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Was he booked?
> >>>>
> >>>> It was a civil case.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Did he attend?
> >>>>
> >>>> Could have if he wished.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Face his accusers?
> >>>>
> >>>> There were none.
> >>>
> >>> And right there your whole argument fails.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
> >>
> >> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
> >> conviction.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Without proper due process
> >>
> >> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
> >> trial, scooter.
> >
> > He never went to court for it.
>
> Trump was free to attend the civil trial in Colorado. His lawyers were at the
> trial and questioned and challenged the witnesses.
>
> Due process was observed.

and he will still be on the ballot.

[Skeeter]

In article <8mxrN.176581$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 8:50 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> I have it. I've posted it. Here it is again, you lazy sloppy illiterate HIV+
> shit-4-braincell.
>
> https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
>
LOL

Finally Rudy come up with something beside "it's already been posted"

[Skeeter]

In article <y9ErN.156074$yEgf....@fx09.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
>

> > In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
> >>>>>>>> was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
> >>>>>>>> to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes
> >>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
> >>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
> >>>>>>>> on trial.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
> >>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
> >>>>>> insurrection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
> >>>> term of 20 years;
> >>>

> >>> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
> >>
> >> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
> >> disqualification, scooter.

> >>
> >>>
> >>>> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
> >>>

> >>> Great.
> >>
> >> Yes.

> >>
> >>>> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
> >>>

> >>> Post the definition.
> >>
> >> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher penalty
> >> is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter.
> >> That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
> >>
> >>> Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
> >>
> >> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or not
> >> anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only mean a
> >> statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event meets
> >> all the criteria for being an insurrection.
> >
> > If so people would be charged with it.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> It was an insurrection.

Nope.

>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant.
> >>>

> >>> Totally relevant
> >>
> >> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
> >> that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
> >
> > So far nothing has proven it.
>
> False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.

What history? It's been 3 years.

>
> >>>>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
> >>>>>> of statutory insurrection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
> >>>>
> >>>> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
> >>>> statutory crime of insurrection.
> >>>

> >>> Right,
> >>
> >> Right, scooter.
> >>
> >>> the mythical insurrection
> >>
> >> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.
> >
> > No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
>
> There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.

None. Show it to me.

[Skeeter]

In article <KaErN.156075$yEgf....@fx09.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 4:02 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <r4CrN.221408$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:

> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:VywrN.295234$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe....@fx34.iad...

> >>>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>

> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.  A
> >>>>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
> >>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
> >>>>>>>> through incitement."
> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Was he indicted?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The hearing was civil.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Was he booked?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It was a civil case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Did he attend?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Could have if he wished.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Face his accusers?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There were none.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And right there your whole argument fails.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
> >>>> conviction.
> >>>

> >>> Where does it say that?
> >>
> >> Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
> >>
> >>> We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
> >>> they did something.
> >>
> >> No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional
> >> "right" to run for president, scooter.
> >
> > Nobody said that.
>
> scooter did.

>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Without proper due process
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
> >>>> trial, scooter.
> >>>

> >>> So you can't read either?
> >>
> >> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
> >> of itself, scooter.
> >
> > You don't believe in due process.
>
> I do, and Trump received it in Colorado.

Still gonna be on the ballot.
>
> >>> Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters
> >>
> >> It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
> >>
> >>> How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
> >>> infamous crime"
> >>
> >> He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
> >> Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."
> >
> >
> > Because he is not guilty.
>
> He is guilty.


Who says?

[Skeeter]

In article <gySrN.233636$7sbb....@fx16.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/23/2024 9:13 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <dfSrN.44068$SyNd....@fx33.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...

> >>
> >> On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad...
> >>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
> >>>>>>>>>> was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
> >>>>>>>>>> to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes
> >>>>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
> >>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
> >>>>>>>>>> not on trial.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
> >>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
> >>>>>>>> insurrection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
> >>>>>> term of 20 years;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
> >>>> disqualification, scooter.
> >>>

> >>> You assert he committed a crime
> >>
> >> No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
> >> to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal
> >> indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
> >> of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
> >> Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
> >> massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
> >>
> >>> Indeed,
> >>
> >> Another scooterism ? empty wheeze.
> >
> > Fani and her boyfriend are going down.
>
> No. Neither will be charged with any crime. Willis may have to turn over the
> prosecution of the RICO criminals to someone else. The worst that could happen
> to Wade is he is removed as the special prosecutor.

He has no experience as a prosecutor.

Both claimed to hate Trump. They used funds to go on vacations.

[Skeeter]

In article <6SWrN.118348$q3F7....@fx45.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/23/2024 2:04 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <GkVrN.44860$Iswd...@fx05.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com says...

> >>
> >> On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, Scout wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd....@fx33.iad...

> >>> Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
> >>
> >> They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
> >> chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the
> >> counts, too.
> >
> > But not insurrection.
>
> No matter. He's going to be convicted and sent to prison.

Yawn, I keep hearing that.

[Skeeter]

In article <AM9sN.49209$U1cc....@fx04.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 6:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uor59v$1r3ma$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...

> >>
> >> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e...@usnews.blocknews.net:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Great.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
> >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Post the definition.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
> >>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty
> >>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
> >>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
> >>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
> >>>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
> >>>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If so people would be charged with it.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> False. They *might* be charged with it,
> >>>>
> >>>> When they are, then 14.3 would apply
> >>>
> >>> It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
> >>> insurrection, scooter.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.
> >>
> >> Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
> >>
> >
> > He said Rittenhouse was guilty too.
>
> No, I didn't. What I said was that when it took the jury a couple of days to
> come back with a verdict, that meant that at least one juror initially voted to
> convict him.

No. You said before the trial he was guilty.



Trump won last night.

[Skeeter]

In article <JuasN.186391$vFZa...@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 7:42 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd....@fx03.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>>> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:uomt6t$ubd2$4...@dont-email.me...

> >>>>>>>> Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >>>>>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9....@fx12.iad:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Winston" <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9t...@UBEblock.psr.com...

> >>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
> >>>>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
> >>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
> >>>>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
> >>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
> >>>>>> criminal behavior.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So Insurrection isn't a crime?
> >>>>
> >>>> It is a crime, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
> >>
> >> Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
> >>
> >> You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
> >
> > Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
>
> Irrelevant.

So you don't care about rule of law if you don't "win"?

[Skeeter]

In article <jvasN.186392$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 7:43 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <nO9sN.53938$5Hnd....@fx03.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd...@fx05.iad...
> >>>> On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> You assert he committed a crime
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
> >>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
> >>>>>> federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the
> >>>>>> submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the
> >>>>>> insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying
> >>>>>> that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the
> >>>>>> insurrection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
> >>>>
> >>>> They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
> >>>> chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the
> >>>> counts, too.
> >>>

> >>> We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
> >>
> >> You've been hearing it for less than six months, scooter. The indictments were
> >> handed down last August.
> >>
> >> You always lie, scooter, and you always get caught.
> >
> > 8 years
>
> No.

Were you in jail during that time?

[Skeeter]

In article <BwasN.186393$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 7:44 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <oO9sN.53939$5Hnd....@fx03.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>>> On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd...@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9....@fx12.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:XywrN.295239$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine...@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> email.me:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovf...@4ax.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decision
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> trial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without
> >>>>>>>>>>>> charges
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ===============
> >>>>>>>>>>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No one said he was before now, scooter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Excellent, so
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump engaged in insurrection,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Excellent and since that is a crime
> >>>>
> >>>> It's also an event, scooter.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. You keep
> >>>> trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
> >>>
> >>> events don't disqualify you
> >>
> >> Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend the
> >> Constitution disqualifies you, scooter.
> >
> > But he didn't.
>
> He did. It doesn't matter if he isn't charged with the statutory crime of
> insurrection. He engaged in it. This is settled.

I guess we can say you were also.

[Skeeter]

In article <gxasN.186394$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 7:45 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uorb18$1rsah$5...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401aa8a8913dca64990fe9
> >> @usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>> news:MPG.4019a20a8...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd...@fx33.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> >>>>> says...

> >>>>>> Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
> >>>>>> any future office.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then why is he running and winning?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
> >>>>
> >>>> And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
> >>>
> >>> He's ahead of Joe.
> >>>
> >> Really?! Biden won New Hampshire and he wasn't even on the ballot.
> >
> > Biden didn't win shit.
>
> He won the Democratic primary.

He's the only one running. What an idiot you are.

[Skeeter]

In article <FzasN.186396$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 8:04 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uorbgb$1rsah$7...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> > says...

> >>
> >> Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd....@fx03.iad:

> >>
> >>> On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>
> >>

> >>>> And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
> >>>
> >>> Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
> >>>
> >>> You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>

> >> If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they would have
> >> use the word "convicted" - they didn't.

> >
> > He's still on the ballot.
>

> Not in Colorado and Maine he isn't.

He will be.

[Skeeter]

In article <%CasN.186398$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 7:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> I didn't. I said what I just told you above. That's what I said.

More lies. You were saying he was guilty before, during and after the
trial.

[Skeeter]

In article <fEasN.186399$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 8:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> I do. You don't and Trump doesn't. In fact, you despise the rule of law. That's
> why you vote for a rapist felon.

No rape, no felon.

Just like Rittenhouse you declare him guilty with no conviction.

[Skeeter]

In article <dFasN.186400$vFZa....@fx13.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 8:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> Unlike you, I've never been incarcerated at any time.

Prove I have.

[Skeeter]

In article <iMasN.67190$zqTf...@fx35.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 8:13 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> No.

>
> > You were saying he was guilty before, during and after the trial.
>

> No.

This is why you are just a kick toy. You lie and edit and snip.

[Skeeter]

In article <kNasN.67191$zqTf....@fx35.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 8:16 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> You already admitted it.

Is this where you run from proving it?

[Skeeter]

In article <rResN.380344$83n7....@fx18.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/24/2024 10:37 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> This is why I always beat you. I tell the truth, and I don't make claims I can't
> support.
>
> I never said that the murderer Rittenhouse would be found guilty. What I said
> was that at least someone on the jury *initially* thought he was. You right-wing
> murder supporters were saying it was slam-dunk, that the jury would almost
> instantly acquit him. In fact, the jury took 24 hours spread over four days
> before they finally acquitted. That means *some* people on the jury initially
> voted for a guilty verdict, and had to be talked into voting to acquit. And
> that's all I said: some jurors initially thought he was guilty.

You never back up what you say. You said I spent time in jail. Back it
up. You said Rittenhouse was guilty before and after the trial.
>
> I never said I expected a guilty verdict. You are lying when you say I did. I
> never said it.

I never said you did. But YOU said he was guilty way before the trial.

[Skeeter]

In article <P2wsN.79082$TSTa....@fx47.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/25/2024 2:13 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <uosjsa$25pob$2...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >> news:MPG.401b4238b...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <uos3kv$200q2$1...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>> news:MPG.401addd92...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd....@fx03.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:uomt6t$ubd2$4...@dont-email.me...

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9....@fx12.iad:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Winston" <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9t...@UBEblock.psr.com...

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>> Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
> >>>> "convicted".
> >>>
> >>> He did no insurrection.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The old conservaturd litnty:
> >> - there was no insurrection
> >> - if there was, tRump wasn't involved
> >> - if he was involved, he had absolute immunity
> >> - if he doesn't have immunity, the 14th doesn't apply because he's not
> >> an officer
> >> - 14th doesn't apply because he'd not been convicted
> >> - yadda, yadda
> >> - rinse, repeat
> >>
> >> Conservaturds are just throwing catsup/spaghetti at the wall hoping
> >> something will stick.
> >
> > There was no insurrection.
>
> There was an insurrection. All knowledgeable observers call it an insurrection.
> That is the verdict of history.

3 years isn't "history".

[Skeeter]

In article <ehzsN.36859$Wbff....@fx37.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/25/2024 11:12 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <GIxsN.255931$Wp_8....@fx17.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
> >>>> On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd...@fx03.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in

> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7....@fx14.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7....@fx45.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>> That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is exactly what you are saying.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
> >>>>
> >>>>> He's guilty because you say so....
> >>>>
> >>>> No, scooter.
> >>>>
> >>>>> otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can't have it both ways.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
> >>>>
> >>>> 14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
> >>>> criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're just
> >>>> wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that would
> >>>> elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to read
> >>>> them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say you are
> >>>> wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a drunken
> >>>> Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the moment).
> >>>
> >>> But you have no proof.
> >>
> >> No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the
> >> indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
> >> with *no* criminal trial.
> >
> > Yet still no proof
>
> Proof.

Where is it? Liar. I'm calling you out dwarf. Show it to us.

[Skeeter]

In article <NizsN.36860$Wbff....@fx37.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/25/2024 11:13 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <HIxsN.255932$Wp_8...@fx17.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:JdesN.68800$GX69....@fx46.iad...
> >>>> On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd....@fx03.iad...
> >>>>>> On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd...@fx05.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad...

> >>>>>>>>>>> You assert he committed a crime
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
> >>>>>>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the
> >>>>>>>>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example,
> >>>>>>>>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
> >>>>>>>>>> not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to
> >>>>>>>>>> states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime
> >>>>>>>>>> not connected to the insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate
> >>>>>>>> court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some
> >>>>>>>> of the counts, too.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You've been hearing it for less than six months
> >>>>>

> >>>>> Is that the length of your memory?
> >>>>
> >>>> That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
> >>>> election-related crimes, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> And given the number of unsupported indictments
> >>
> >> There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments against Trump
> >> are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We [meaning only Trump] did
> >> nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie. Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake
> >> DoJ letters, calls to "find" nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong
> >> and *illegal*, scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence,
> >> scooter ? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
> >
> > Just like the
>
> No.

and you lose again.

[Skeeter]

In article <iDRsN.246882$Ama9....@fx12.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/26/2024 8:45 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <MHQsN.385956$83n7....@fx18.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/25/2024 10:57 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>> news:GIxsN.255931$Wp_8....@fx17.iad...

> >>>> On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:

> >>>>>> On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd...@fx03.iad...
> >>>>>>>> On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd....@fx05.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:

> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd....@fx33.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> All Rudy can say.
> >>
> >> I say a lot more than that, scooter, and it shoots you down every time.
> >
> > You make claims and
>
> ...and always back them up. That's right.
>
> scooter and you never back up your claims.

You never back up anything. I dare you to show where I "admitted" i
spent time in jail. You made the claim, now back it up pussy.

[Skeeter]

In article <Vv0tN.252093$7sbb....@fx16.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/26/2024 9:20 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <wf0tN.248202$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, bond...@att.net says...
> >>
> >> On 1/26/2024 7:58 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
> >>
> >>> "Baxter"  wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>
> >>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> wrote in
> >>>> news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe....@fx42.iad:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
> >>>>>> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe....@fx36.iad...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
> >>>>>>>> "Michael A Terrell"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf....@fx09.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,

> >>>>>>>>> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> You leftists
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ah another leftist
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No one actually says that.
> >>
> >> All right-wingnuts figuratively say it. Trump says it, Andrea W, you Nazi whore.
> >
> > No one says it.
>
> You say it. Andrea W (HIV+ troll Nazi whore) says it. Trump says it. All Nazi
> right-wingnut shitbags, like you, say it.

No one says it and you lied. No proof. You ran. You are a coward and I
win again.

[Skeeter]

In article <JPvtN.42379$9cLc...@fx02.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/28/2024 7:49 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <up4r0v$3pqqo$2...@dont-email.me>, inva...@invalid.invalid
> > says...

> >>
> >> Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> >>> In article <uoktt9$jr9h$1...@dont-email.me>, inva...@invalid.invalid

> >>>> Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> >>>>> In article <uo8lgo$20bju$2...@dont-email.me>, web...@polaris.net says...
> >>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5...@dont-email.me>, patr...@protonmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
> >>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
> >>>>>>> exceptions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's your fav excuse?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. bamboo ballots
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. magic thermostats
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. HUGO CHAVEZ
> >>>>
> >>>> 5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
> >>>
> >>> That shit came from you.
>
> No, those are *all* claims made by Trumpswabs.

Only your ilk even talk about them.
>
> >>
> >> So you like all the trumpbillie excuses!
> >
> > I don't even know what that means.
>
> Of course you know what it means, Skeeter-Shit. It means all the lies told by
> Trump and his knuckle-dragging Trumpswab followers as to why he lost the
> election. You know this, Skeeter-Shit.


There is no such word. You lose.

[Skeeter]

In article <efEuN.39250$Wbf...@fx37.iad>, mike.am...@earthlink.nut
says...
>
> On 1/31/2024 2:59 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <upegtv$1n34p$3...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366
> >> @usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <upec99$1m7r2$4...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>> news:MPG.40245d84f...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1...@dont-email.me>, bax02
> >> _spam...@baxcode.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> ===========
> >>>>>> See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
> >>>>>> involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
> >>>>>> "illegal border crossing".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
> >>>>
> >>>> Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
> >>>
> >>> Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere than
> >>> a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the law. You
> >>> don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
> >> process for that penalty.
> >
> > Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
>
> Is it? Prove it.

Already done.

[Skeeter]

In article <JPEuN.70051$Sf59....@fx48.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 1/31/2024 7:52 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> You didn't even attempt it. You wouldn't know how.

I did. Many times. You won't look because it makes you look bad.

[Baxter]

Michael A Terrell <mike.am...@earthlink.nut> wrote in
news:efEuN.39250$Wbf...@fx37.iad:

to the tRumpTurds, Improper Entry is worse than Serial
Murder/Rape/Treason/etc and the guy who cut off his father's head and
displayed it on youTube is a patriotic hero.

[Skeeter]

In article <MIavN.56355$5Hnd....@fx03.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/2/2024 10:35 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <upj32e$2lilb$1...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote in
> >> news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3...@dont-email.me:
> >>
> >>> On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>> news:upebu4$1m7r2$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do explain how Biden is the cause.
> >>>>
> >>>> Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
> >>>> Trump that helped to secure the border?
> >>>>
> >>>> That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did
> >>>> that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
> >>>>
> >>>> and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that.
> >>>> Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will
> >>>> ignore each month.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
> >>> country, which it is most definitely doing.
> >>> And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
> >>> for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is
> >>> that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
> >>> sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the
> >>> democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
> >>> dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what
> >>> they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for
> >>> them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
> >>> and Trump's support is growing.
> >>>
> >> You mean policies like separating children from their parents? Policies
> >> that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people?
> >
> > You cross that river with children that is child abuse.
>
> No.

Yes.
>
> >> Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
> >> anything to secure the border.
> >
> > Keep the blinders on.
>
> Concession of defeat noted.


They commit crimes when they cross illegally. You don't support rule of
law.

[Skeeter]

In article <2KwvN.297908$PuZ9....@fx11.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/2/2024 4:55 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> No. It's settled.

>
> >>
> >>>> Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
> >>>> anything to secure the border.
> >>>
> >>> Keep the blinders on.
> >>
> >> Concession of defeat noted.
> >
> >
> > They commit crimes when they cross illegally.
>

> You were challenged to prove that and you admitted you can't. You lose.

I did and all he did was whine about a penalty. The fact is it's still a
crime.

[Skeeter]

In article <6izvN.65796$SyNd....@fx33.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/3/2024 2:24 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> You didn't. You couldn't, and you admitted it.
>
> You're a fat homo.

I posted a link. You choose to ignore because I am right. Crossing the
river to get here is a crime.

[Skeeter]

In article <rz9wN.72466$U1cc...@fx04.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/3/2024 4:42 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> You didn't.

>
> You're a fat homo.

I did

You're a coward.

[Skeeter]

In article <x6awN.290300$q3F7....@fx45.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/5/2024 10:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <upqpc7$ahe9$9...@dont-email.me>,
> > me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...

> >>
> >> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >> news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>> pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote in
> >>> news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5...@dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >>>>> news:upgth1$275ha$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:MPG.40247dec5...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <upegr1$1n34p$2...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>> bax02_s...@baxcode.com says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just like how he opened it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IOW, you have no clue
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
> >>>
> >>> That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
> >>>
> >>>> . he can simply reimpose
> >>>>> thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
> >>>> happen. I don't see why though?
> >>>> He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
> >>>> screwed up.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
> >>
> >> A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
> >
> > Joe said Iran was at war with Russia and
>
> Biden never said that.

Yes he did. I saw it.


You are a coward and won't go to a video but it's right there. Old Joe
himself fucking up again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP9S4cUUWB4&t=16s

[Skeeter]

In article <G8awN.290301$q3F7....@fx45.iad>,
mike.am...@earthlink.nut says...
>
> On 2/5/2024 10:42 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>

> > In article <upqpc8$ahe9$1...@dont-email.me>,

> > me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message

> >> news:upmu51$3chc5$4...@dont-email.me...
> >>> Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
> >>> news:MPG.402845bbb...@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
> >>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote in
> >>>>> news:upk782$2reg3$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
> >>>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
> >>>>>> see what a sham it is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
> >>>>> Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
> >>>>> without ever seeing the text of the bill.
> >>>>
> >>>> I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely demanded his
> >>> cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
> >>
> >> Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
> >>
> >
> > Trump never did that and
>
> Yes, he did.
>
> "Trump urges Republicans to reject Senate deal on border measures, Ukraine aid"
>
> Former US president Donald Trump urged Republicans Monday to reject a bipartisan
> Senate deal trading tough new border security measures for $60 billion in
> Ukraine funding and other national security priorities.
>
> https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240205-trump-urges-republicans-to-reject-senate-deal-on-border-measures-ukraine-aid
>
> That faggot Johnson even admitted that Trump told him to kill any border deal.

It's a shitty deal and give more to Ukraine then it does to the border.
It still allows illegally entry with no doxing.