Donald is about to go through some things...

[str8line]

Trump loses final bid to stop Colorado case that could see him barred from ballot

Case filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by advocacy group

www.the-independent.com

 

[Sardines]

Ivanka is going to be forced to testify against Donald.

There is only one solution.

Donald must marry Ivanka.

That way she doesn't have to testify against Donald. Also, Donald finally gets to be with the person he really wants.

 

[fishonjazz]

Ivanka is going to be forced to testify against Donald.

There is only one solution.

Donald must marry Ivanka.

That way she doesn't have to testify against Donald. Also, Donald finally gets to be with the person he really wants.

nice
His flock would think marrying his daughter is what Jesus would do and praise him for it.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Trump loses final bid to stop Colorado case that could see him barred from ballot

Case filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters represented by advocacy group

www.the-independent.com

This case is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. The judge in this case has financially supported a political action committee called Colorado Turnout whose purpose is to remove Republicans who have voiced any support for Donald Trump. She is refusing to recuse herself despite the obvious bias and conflict. She has also ruled Trump does not get due process in that he doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection anywhere in order to be sentenced for insurrection in her court. You can bank on Trump being found guilty in this case, which will be appealed but that will cost Trump even more time and money which is the point of this persecution. I'm not saying Trump has done nothing wrong, because he has, but this case is so obvious that they aren't even trying to hide it.

 

[One Brow]

She has also ruled the Trump does not get due process in that he doesn't need to be convicted of insurrection anywhere in order to be sentenced for insurrection in her court.

The precedent for 14th Amendment disqualification - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

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.

www.citizensforethics.org

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.

What is your authority for claiming a conviction is necessary?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

What is your authority for claiming a conviction is necessary?

All but two of the so-called examples were prior to the Amnesty Act of May 22, 1872 which waived that part of the 14th Amendment for everyone who wasn't part of the 36th or 37th Congress. Hint: Trump wasn't part of the 36th or 37th Congress, and no the act didn't specify it was limited to the Civil War.

Of the only two who came after 1872, one was convicted in a court of law for violation of the Espionage Act. The other one was some poor schmo who couldn't afford the legal battle to prevent being railroaded so they'd have precedent with which to do exactly what they are doing to Trump in this case.

 

[One Brow]

All but two of the so-called examples were prior to the Amnesty Act of May 22, 1872 which waived that part of the 14th Amendment for everyone who wasn't part of the 36th or 37th Congress.

Incorrect.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

Hint: Trump wasn't part of the 36th or 37th Congress, and no the act didn't specify it was limited to the Civil War.

Trump was leader of the military, head of the government and out most senior foreign ,minister.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Trump was leader of the military, head of the government and out most senior foreign ,minister.

Trump was the commander in chief but he was not "in the military". It is not heads of government that were excluded but rather "heads of departments" which has a very specific meaning, one that includes the members of the President's cabinet but not the President himself.

43 U.S. Code § 1702 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

The term "foreign minister" also has as specific definition, and it doesn't include the President but instead senior members of the State Department.

The Colorado lawsuit is garbage, and it is extremely destructive because it is an open subversion of democracy. It is election interference.

 

[Sardines]

Trump was the commander in chief but he was not "in the military". It is not heads of government that were excluded but rather "heads of departments" which has a very specific meaning, one that includes the members of the President's cabinet but not the President himself.

43 U.S. Code § 1702 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

The term "foreign minister" also has as specific definition, and it doesn't include the President but instead senior members of the State Department.

The Colorado lawsuit is garbage, and it is extremely destructive because it is an open subversion of democracy. It is election interference.

Trump probably shouldn't have tried to subvert the election. In doing so, which he did live, in person, on video, he disqualified himself from being the President.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law is clear and no cult leader can exclude their self from submission to legal authority. It doesn't matter how popular they are. It doesn't matter how many fools they have in their back pocket. The founders of this nation and the leaders who followed them are great. They knew enough to know that such things as Trump might threaten our Constitution. Laws exist to prevent him from destroying our beloved nation and laying waste to our Constitution.

Funny how things like "fake news" get flipped. And now, not in an election, the term "election interference" is being used intentionally to change the very meaning of the language we use to discuss the important issues at hand. If you were to say "campaign interference" then you would have been using, at least, language related to the events you were describing. By saying "election interference" you are acting to change the meaning of words so that you can subvert the message of those you are opposed to. It is inherently dishonest. There are two types of people who engage in this type of dishonesty. The ones who have been fooled and are too stupid to know the difference. The other type is far more egregious, they are the ones who know the difference and are being misleading and destructive to the process on purpose.

Which one are you?

 

[str8line]

Trump was the commander in chief but he was not "in the military". It is not heads of government that were excluded but rather "heads of departments" which has a very specific meaning, one that includes the members of the President's cabinet but not the President himself.

43 U.S. Code § 1702 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

The term "foreign minister" also has as specific definition, and it doesn't include the President but instead senior members of the State Department.

The Colorado lawsuit is garbage, and it is extremely destructive because it is an open subversion of democracy. It is election interference.

So you're saying the cure is worse than the disease? "Extremely destructive" because it's an open subversion of democracy when we're talking about removing a President for a cut and dried open subversion of democracy? You are high on your own supply.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So you're saying the cure is worse than the disease?

I'm saying the cure is illegal and is itself in reality exactly what they claim to be fighting. The difference is those pushing this Colorado court case might be successful in their election subversion effort while January 6 was doomed to failure.

Subversions of elections are wrong. January 6 was wrong. This Colorado court case is also wrong. Let the people vote. Count the votes. Seat the winner. I don't feel that is a hard concept to grasp yet so many seem to be in the camp of believing it is okay when their side does it and only bad when the other side does it. I disagree with that and think that path is ultimately destructive for the nation if those are the rules we're now going to play by.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

We are a nation of laws, not of men. The law is clear and no cult leader can exclude their self from submission to legal authority. It doesn't matter how popular they are. It doesn't matter how many fools they have in their back pocket. The founders of this nation and the leaders who followed them are great. They knew enough to know that such things as Trump might threaten our Constitution. Laws exist to prevent him from destroying our beloved nation and laying waste to our Constitution.

I know you want to believe that but the current commander in chief of the Executive Branch leading an insurrection against what he already had commander in chief control over apparently wasn't on the founder's bingo card. The big laws with teeth being mentioned don't fit because they were designed to stop powerful men around the President from toppling the President. That isn't to say no laws were broken, but the laws that were broken do not carry the types of penalties being sought.

As bad as Trump's actions were, I find the latest actions by the government that ignore their own rules to be far more frightening. Trump is a person. He can be voted in to office. He can be voted out of office. He can be removed via impeachment or the 25th Amendment. If Trump was a problem then we all know how to go about removing him from power, and we did. Contrast that with who railroaded that politician mentioned in the reply to One Brow just so they have a precedent they could use to attack Trump. Do you know their names? Did you vote for them? If they are a problem, how do you go about removing them from power? A nebulous corruption is a far harder foe to fight and a far bigger threat than any single person could ever be, even if that single person is Trump.