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

[Skeeter]

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.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

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.

[Skeeter]

In article <hoTpN.26893$SyNd....@fx33.iad>, bond...@att.net says...

Yet he's leading the polls.

[Max Boot]

On 1/17/2024 11:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

He's heading to prison.

[Andrew W]

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:hoTpN.26893$SyNd....@fx33.iad...

You dolts believe any Dem fuelled nonsense.

Do you also still believe he colluded with Russia??


--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

[Scout]

"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$2...@dont-email.me...

> 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.

Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..

Kind of hard to disqualify him when NOTHING happened.

Oh, but then when did liberals EVER care about the facts.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

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

[Skeeter]

In article <uobbbg$5v6$1...@reader1.panix.com>, b...@panix.com says...

But not Trump.

[David Hartung]

On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
> news:uo8lgo$20bju$2...@dont-email.me...
>> 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.
>
> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted of
> insurrection for events on Jan 6th..

Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require criminal
conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.

[Max Boot]

On 1/18/2024 6:30 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child

molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

No need. 14.3 doesn't require that.

[Scout]

"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.

Not a single person was charged much less convicted of insurrection.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

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

[Baxter]

David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59...@fx48.iad:

There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy

[Skeeter]

In article <uobgsm$748$1...@reader1.panix.com>, b...@panix.com says...

Still no insurrection charges against Trump.

[Winston]

Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>> 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.
>
> Not by itself it doesn't.

It does.

> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> opinion").

He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.

[Skeeter]

In article <zIcqN.43421$U1cc...@fx04.iad>, bond...@att.net says...

He's still on the ballot.

[Scout]

"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:uobgsm$748$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Yep, and is entirely different than insurrection under 18USC2383

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

Once again Rudy proves that even with the evidence right in front of him, he
just can't avoid being wrong...

So to be clear sedition and insurrection are two totally different crimes.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uobgvb$2l57l$5...@dont-email.me...

Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?
We might as well complain about how many people have been charged with jay
walking.. just as relevant to the argument.

[Scout]

"Winston" <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydmst2t...@UBEblock.psr.com...

Actually no one from Jan 6th has...... so it's kind of hard to claim there
was any insurrection when there have been ZERO charges much less
convictions.

[Winston]

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.]

[NoBody]

On 1/18/2024 8:34 AM, scooter lied:

>
>
> "Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:uobgvb$2l57l$5...@dont-email.me...
>> David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
>> news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59...@fx48.iad:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uo8lgo$20bju$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>> convicted of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>
>>> Not required, scooter. Disqualification via 14.3 does not require
>>> criminal conviction. You've been instructed on this already, scooter.
>>>
>> There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
>
> Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?

Functionally they are the same, scooter. The people charged with *and convicted
for* seditious conspiracy were participating in an event known as an
insurrection, scooter. They were charged with seditious conspiracy rather than
insurrection because the maximum penalty for the former is twice as long as for
the latter, scooter. Suppose you were to participate in a robbery and murder
someone in the course of it, scooter. If you were only prosecuted for the
murder, would that mean you were not a robber as well? Obviously not — you
participated ("engaged") in the robbery, during which you murdered someone, so
you are both a robber and a murderer, even though only tried and convicted for
the latter.

You're so fucking stupid, scooter.

[Skeeter]

In article <EveqN.210362$Ama9....@fx12.iad>, NoB...@nowhere.corn
says...

> murder, would that mean you were not a robber as well? Obviously not ? you

> participated ("engaged") in the robbery, during which you murdered someone, so
> you are both a robber and a murderer, even though only tried and convicted for
> the latter.
>
> You're so fucking stupid, scooter.

No insurrection charges. That is settled.

[Andrew W]

"Winston" wrote in message news:ydmst2t...@UBEblock.psr.com...

>
>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>> 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.
>
>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>opinion").
>

You mean the court of Dem voting leftist opinion. The courts are stacked
with Dem voters.

>
>If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> -WBE

[Andrew W]

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc...@fx04.iad...

>
>On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>
>It does.
>

Only leftists say so. That's ok, the majority can continue to ignore.

>
>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>> opinion").
>
>He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>under 14.3.
>

How is that constitutional? Especially since the majority want Trump because
they're so sick and tired of all the lies and shenanigans.
Leftists need to learn that they can't just make willy nilly accusations and
keep getting their way.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc...@fx04.iad...
>>
>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>
> Only leftists say so.

All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all say
so, and they're all ultra-conservative.

>>
>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>> opinion").
>>
>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under
>> 14.3.
>>
>
> How is that constitutional?

Because it's in the Constitution.

> Especially since the majority want Trump because

What does that have to do with constitutional?

[Andrew W]

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:sWhqN.222959$7sbb....@fx16.iad...

>
>On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
>
>> "OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc...@fx04.iad...
>>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>>
>>> It does.
>>>
>>
>> Only leftists say so.
>
>All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all
>say so, and they're all ultra-conservative.
>

Bullcrap. They're all Dem voters.

>>>
>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>> opinion").
>>>
>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>> under 14.3.
>>>
>>
>> How is that constitutional?
>
>Because it's in the Constitution.
>

Bullcrap again.

>
>> Especially since the majority want Trump because
>
>What does that have to do with constitutional?
>

The people decide what goes, not the Marxist left authoritarians. Got it?

[Andrew W]

"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>

The Proud Boys are a bunch of minority idiots and louts. They're not capable
of overthrowing a government. So no valid conviction. That was staged to
send a message of fear and compliance to others.

[Andrew W]

"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message

news:uobgsm$748$1...@reader1.panix.com...

When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l
s h i t.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 1/18/2024 3:15 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:sWhqN.222959$7sbb....@fx16.iad...
>>
>> On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
>>
>>> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc...@fx04.iad...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only leftists say so.
>>
>> All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all
>> say so, and they're all ultra-conservative.
>>
>
> Bullcrap.

Bullshit. They're conservatives, all of them.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>>> opinion").
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>>> under 14.3.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is that constitutional?
>>
>> Because it's in the Constitution.
>>
>
> Bullcrap again.

No, Andrea, you lying trolling whore.

>
>>
>>> Especially since the majority want Trump because
>>
>> What does that have to do with constitutional?
>>
>
> The people decide what goes

They get to vote for an eligible candidate on the ballot, Andrea, you lying
trolling whore. That excludes Trump who is disqualified.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 1/18/2024 3:26 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

No, it isn't, Andrea, you lying trolling whore.

[Governor Swill]

Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Swill
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

[Governor Swill]

+1

[pothead]

On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>> -WBE
>
> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>
> Swill

Yes.
And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.


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

[pothead]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.]

On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>
>>> It does.
>>
>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>> opinion").
>>
>>> 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.]
>
> +1
>
> Swill

I too do not see any qualification that requires the person to be found guilty.
This is something for SCOTUS to decide as it is indeed a gray area.

[Siri Cruise]

Don Fatso is obviously disqualified. I haven't the power to
enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

[Josh Rosenbluth]

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.

[Governor Swill]

Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?

How that work?

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>>> -WBE
>>
>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

>Yes.
>And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.

This is probably one of the most important and profound things we agree on. It's not much
of a Democracy if we let the courts decide instead of the voters.

Swill
NP: Moody Blues - Lovely To See You

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>pothead wrote:
>> On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

>> Yes.
>> And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>
>Don Fatso is obviously disqualified.

Bullshit.

> I haven't the power to
>enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
>what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.

I am NOT happy to defer to the SCOTUS. This is too important to leave to them. Trump's
Presidency is an issue the VOTERS should decide because we live in a republic that prides
itself on following democratic forms.

Swill
NP: Moody Blues - Higher And Higher

[Josh Rosenbluth]

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?
>
> How that work?

Under Colorado state law § 1-4-1204(4), which permits people to
challenge the placement of a person on the presidential primary ballot.

https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-1-elections/general-primary-recall-and-congressional-vacancy-elections/article-4-elections-access-to-ballot-by-candidates/part-2-general-elections/section-1-4-204-state-and-district-officers

[Scout]

"Andrew W" <sp...@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1...@dont-email.me...

Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have been
tried and convicted under 18USC2383 for it to matter.

That's the law that covers insurrection.

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.

[Scout]

"Winston" <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:ydil3qt...@UBEblock.psr.com...

Would certainly seem to be a direct violation of his right of due process
under the 5th and 6th Amendments.
Nevermind the core principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

[Scout]

"Andrew W" <sp...@defense.com> wrote in message

news:uoc72d$2p36s$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Winston" wrote in message news:ydmst2t...@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>opinion").
>>
>
> You mean the court of Dem voting leftist opinion. The courts are stacked
> with Dem voters.

Yep... if you mean an emotional appeal to stupid people.. that would be
accurate.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston

The one thing about libs that clear: they don't care about fairness,
law, or process unless it is being used to get what they want.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:46:38 -0500, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>> -WBE
>
>Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>
>Swill

Add "and not tie him up in court so he can particpate in a fair
contest" and we just might agree.

[NoBody]

You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.

[Scout]

"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:o0pkqi5335m4b18vl...@4ax.com...

and more recently.. about what the Central Commit.. I mean the DNC wants.

[Scout]

"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:l8pkqih0n8earq8a3...@4ax.com...

Indeed doing so would be a direct violation of the 5th and 6th Amendments
which spell out how someone is to be charged and tried for a crime.

Unilateral decisions by a judge without a jury.. doesn't meet the legal
requirements.

[Scout]

"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoa...@4ax.com...

Yea, I just can't seem to distort my views of reality enough to see such a
twisted view...... must be the drugs they are on.

What's most amusing is how the DNC is showing they are like the Russian
Central Committee.... you can vote, but only for the candidate they select,
and will adjust the votes to produce that outcome.

Yea, we certainly how concerned the DNC is about the will of the people...

[Baxter]

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:uuvjqi16psa1pkt16...@4ax.com:

Bullshit! We don't "let the voters decide" on age, citizenship,
residency. And with tRump the voters DID decide - and now tRump is
facing CRIMINAL charges.

[Baxter]

NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:l8pkqih0n8earq8a3...@4ax.com:

Requirements for Office are not criminal proceedings. You are not
deprived of life, libery nor property if you are not allowed to run for
office.

[Skeeter]

In article <e3ljqipmm3uvb1c85...@4ax.com>,
governo...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> >actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> >opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
> >question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
> >been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> > -WBE
>
> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>
> Swill

Yes.

[Skeeter]

In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1...@dont-email.me>, chine...@www.yahoo.com
says...

>
> pothead wrote:
> > On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> >>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> >>> opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
> >>> question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
> >>> been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> >>> -WBE
> >>
> >> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
> >>
> >> Swill
> >
> > Yes.
> > And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>
> Don Fatso is obviously disqualified. I haven't the power to
> enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
> what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.

Because YOU don't like their decision?

[Baxter]

NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoa...@4ax.com:

Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.

Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

[Skeeter]

In article <s10kqi5it557f2vkl...@4ax.com>,
governo...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >pothead wrote:
> >> On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>
> >> Yes.
> >> And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
> >
> >Don Fatso is obviously disqualified.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> > I haven't the power to
> >enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
> >what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.
>
> I am NOT happy to defer to the SCOTUS. This is too important to leave to them. Trump's
> Presidency is an issue the VOTERS should decide because we live in a republic that prides
> itself on following democratic forms.

Damn. We agree on something.

[Skeeter]

In article <uoe4ou$36mvn$1...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
says...

The voters have him way ahead in the polls.

[Baxter]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014458a...@usnews.blocknews.net:

============
Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the
original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to
hold government office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-
conservatives.html

============

You don't get more conservative than the Federalist Society.

[David Hartung]

On 1/19/2024 3:41 AM, scooter lied:

No, scooter. Trump was afforded all due process, and the sixth amendment has
nothing to do with due process.

[David Hartung]

On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:

No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.

[Wilson Woods]

None is needed.

[The Last Doctor]

Why doesn’t he just comply with and resolve the court cases swiftly, so
that he can be free of them instead of delaying and deferring? After all,
he will win the cases and be found not guilty, won’t he?

I mean, if he’s guilty and loses the cases, surely you wouldn’t WANT him on
the ballot, would you?

As to the disqualification thing - why isn’t he pressing the Supreme Court
- which is heavily stacked in his favour - to make a ruling? After all, he
won’t be disqualified, will he? So he should be keen to get judicial
confirmation that would silence all this noise.

Unless he is actually constitutionally disqualified, and the very
conservative Supreme Court rules so - in which case, you couldn’t HAVE him
on the ballot.

If SCOTUS rules that he isn’t disqualified, boy will those states that have
ruled otherwise have egg on their faces.

Trump should have his days in court. He should get all these cases freely
and fairly resolved. And he should do it now so that they aren’t hanging
over his head during the campaign.

How strong would his candidacy be then? Pretty darned strong. He might only
lose by 8 million popular votes and 70+ electoral college votes again, if
he clears his name.

You know. Like the 2020 election that he freely and fairly lost. But then
tried to steal. And encouraged his supporters to rise up against freedom.

--
“The timelines and … canon … are rupturing” - the Doctor

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:

14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.

[Cune I. Form]

On 1/19/2024 7:39 AM, Baxter wrote:

> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>
> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

*sigh* it doesn't matter to Kremlin Girl. You have to provide source
data and cites, or Kremlin Girl will whine incessantly until you get
bored and quit responding out of boredom.

[Skeeter]

In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
says...

Sure haven't seen any proof of it.

[Skeeter]

In article <uoebql$37vr1$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@ie.nt says...

Why would we believe you kooks?

[Skeeter]

In article <0cxqN.145928$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, ban...@hotmail.com
says...

So you don't believe in rule of law. What an asswipe.

[Skeeter]

In article <UbxqN.145924$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...

Why are you using the nyms of people better than you?

[Skeeter]

In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...

Yes, that's why he's not in jail.

[Skeeter]

In article <uoeb0q$37p4b$2...@dont-email.me>, no...@nowhere.com says...

Never gonna happen.

[Wilson Woods]

On 1/19/2024 9:49 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

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.

[Baxter]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1
@usnews.blocknews.net:

Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?

Or did you think J. Michael Luttig was a liberal?

What part of "Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum
believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution" do you not understand?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-
ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-
holding-office/

[Baxter]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014641eb...@usnews.blocknews.net:

The 14th Amendment IS law.

[Baxter]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401464f06...@usnews.blocknews.net:

Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?

[Andrew W]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:uoeb0q$37p4b$2...@dont-email.me...

Shouldn't the voters decide who should be disqualified and who they want to
vote for?
But the anti-democratic left never asks them. They just tell people what
goes.


--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

[Skeeter]

In article <uoeq6h$3ag70$2...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
says...

I don't really care.

[Skeeter]

In article <uoeqed$3ag70$4...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
says...

Huh?

[Andrew W]

"Governor Swill" wrote in message
news:s10kqi5it557f2vkl...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@www.yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>

>>pothead wrote:

>>> On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
>>>> <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

><snip>

>>>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>

>>> Yes.
>>> And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>>
>>Don Fatso is obviously disqualified.
>

>Bullshit.

>
>> I haven't the power to
>>enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
>>what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.
>

>I am NOT happy to defer to the SCOTUS. This is too important to leave to
>them. Trump's
>Presidency is an issue the VOTERS should decide because we live in a
>republic that prides
>itself on following democratic forms.
>

>Swill
>

Are you pro Trump now?

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:03:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>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:

<snip>

>>> 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?
>>
>> How that work?
>
>Under Colorado state law § 1-4-1204(4), which permits people to
>challenge the placement of a person on the presidential primary ballot.
>
>https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-1-elections/general-primary-recall-and-congressional-vacancy-elections/article-4-elections-access-to-ballot-by-candidates/part-2-general-elections/section-1-4-204-state-and-district-officers

From your irrelevant cite, "Section 1-4-204 - State and district officers"

This is about election of state officials. Nothing here about the Presidency or any other
federal office, and nothing about removal of any candidate from any ballot.

How dirty do you want to get before you stop digging this rabbit hole?

Swill
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

[Governor Swill]

Oh. It's Rudy.

*click*

[Governor Swill]

No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/19/2024 5:12 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:03:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> 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:
> <snip>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> How that work?
>>
>> Under Colorado state law § 1-4-1204(4), which permits people to
>> challenge the placement of a person on the presidential primary ballot.
>>
>> https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-1-elections/general-primary-recall-and-congressional-vacancy-elections/article-4-elections-access-to-ballot-by-candidates/part-2-general-elections/section-1-4-204-state-and-district-officers
>

Oops, typo in my URL:

https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-1-elections/general-primary-recall-and-congressional-vacancy-elections/article-4-elections-access-to-ballot-by-candidates/part-12-presidential-primary-elections/section-1-4-1204-names-on-ballots

“Any challenge to the listing of any candidate on the presidential
primary election ballot must be made in writing and filed with the
district court in accordance with section 1-1-113(1) no later than five
days after the filing deadline for candidates”

[Josh Rosenbluth]

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."

[Baxter]

"Andrew W" <sp...@defense.com> wrote in

news:uoer20$3amvn$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
> news:uoeb0q$37p4b$2...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>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.
>>
>
> Shouldn't the voters decide who should be disqualified and who they
> want to vote for?
> But the anti-democratic left never asks them. They just tell people
> what goes.
>

The Constitution sets out some basic requirements. Not up for mob rule.
And its not "anti-democratic left" - support for the Constitution is
across all idiologial divisions.

[Baxter]

Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014adc5d...@usnews.blocknews.net:

Ithat's obvious - you don't care about the Constitution, nor actual
democracy - you only care about power.

[Baxter]

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cm7mqilfiq27mekbb...@4ax.com:

> 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.
>

Wrong - two courts in Colorado found the insurrection clause applied to
tRump. Finding of Fact - SCOTUS usually doesn't deal with Findings of
Fact - so don't hold your breath on that point.

[Anthony Soprano]

Arnold is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that makes
him ineligible to run for or be The President of the USA. He was born in
Austria.

[Baxter]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:uof7eq$3ce51$4...@dont-email.me:

And the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that finding.

[nickname unavailable]

On 1/19/2024 1:54 PM, Andrea W, stupid lying Nazi troll whore, lied:

> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message news:uoeb0q$37p4b$2...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Shouldn't the voters decide who should be disqualified and who they want to vote
> for?

No, just as the voters don't get to elect a naturalized citizen or someone age
26 to the presidency, Andrea, you stupid lying Nazi whore.

[Andrew W]

"Baxter" wrote in message news:uof9tq$3crg9$1...@dont-email.me...

Who decides who's the mob?

[Andrew W]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:uof7eq$3ce51$4...@dont-email.me...

A court packed with Democrat voters/anti-Trumpers.
Lets do an impartial trial.

[Wilson Woods]

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.

[Mr. B1ack]

On 1/19/2024 6:51 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling Nazi whore, lied:

Bullshit, Andrea, you lying trolling Nazi whore.

[Andrew W]

"Baxter" wrote in message news:uoe5aa$36mvn$4...@dont-email.me...
>
>Skeeter <Skeet...@proton.me> wrote in
>news:MPG.4014458a...@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
>> In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1...@dont-email.me>, chine...@www.yahoo.com
>> says...

>>>
>>> pothead wrote:
>>> > On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
>>> >> <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>

>>> >>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>>> >>>> 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.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and
>>> >>> until he's actually charged and convicted in court (not just the
>>> >>> "court of public opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars"
>>> >>> are saying otherwise, I'd question their education and
>>> >>> competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even been charged with
>>> >>> insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted. -WBE

>>> >>
>>> >> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>>> >>

>>> >> Swill

>>> >
>>> > Yes.
>>> > And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>>>

>>> Don Fatso is obviously disqualified. I haven't the power to

>>> enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
>>> what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.
>>

>> Because YOU don't like their decision?
>
>============
>Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
>
>Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the
>original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to
>hold government office.
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection-
>conservatives.html
>
>============
>
>You don't get more conservative than the Federalist Society.
>

Did the law professors say that after leftists told them that Trump told his
supporters to be violent and overthrow the election and the government,
which he didn't?

[Andrew W]

"Skeeter" wrote in message
news:MPG.401445e2...@usnews.blocknews.net...
>
>In article <uoe4ou$36mvn$1...@dont-email.me>, bax02_s...@baxcode.com
>says...

>>
>> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:uuvjqi16psa1pkt16...@4ax.com:

>>
>> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead
>> > <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
>> >>> <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until
>> >>>>he's actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of
>> >>>>public opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying
>> >>>>otherwise, I'd question their education and competance. AFAIK, so
>> >>>>far, he hasn't even been charged with insurrection much less
>> >>>>prosecuted and convicted.
>> >>>> -WBE
>> >>>
>> >>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>> >

>> >>Yes.
>> >>And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>> >

>> > This is probably one of the most important and profound things we
>> > agree on. It's not much of a Democracy if we let the courts decide
>> > instead of the voters.
>> >
>> Bullshit! We don't "let the voters decide" on age, citizenship,
>> residency. And with tRump the voters DID decide - and now tRump is
>> facing CRIMINAL charges.
>
>The voters have him way ahead in the polls.
>

Shhh. He doesn't want to hear that. It's an annoying anomaly that can't be
explained.

[NoBody]

The undeniably conservative law professors said it because Trump clearly engaged
in insurrection and is thereby disqualified under 14.3. The undeniably
conservative law professors said Trump is disqualified because:

* Trump engaged in insurrection — not in rational dispute
* 14.3 says that persons who engage in insurrection after having previously
taken an oath to support/preserve/protect/defend the Constitution, which
Trump did, are ineligible

Trump is ineligible.

[Andrew W]

"Baxter" wrote in message news:uofah1$3crg9$5...@dont-email.me...

Who cares about the Supreme Court of Colorado? They're just Dem
voters/shills.

[NoBody]

On 1/19/2024 9:26 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling Nazi whore, lied:

SCOTUS cares, Andrea, you lying trolling Nazi whore.

[%]

Skeeter wrote:
> In article <UbxqN.145924$yEgf....@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
> says...
>>
>> On 1/19/2024 3:41 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Winston" <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ydil3qt...@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:

>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bond...@att.net> writes:

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>>>

>>>>> It does.

>>>>
>>>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>>>> opinion").
>>>>

>>>>> 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.]
>>>

>>> Would certainly seem to be a direct violation of his right of due process under
>>> the 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>
>> No, scooter. Trump was afforded all due process, and the sixth amendment has
>> nothing to do with due process.
>
> Why are you using the nyms of people better than you?
>
i told that moron not to be stupid