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.