In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot. >> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
In article <hoTpN.26893$SyNd.24661@fx33.iad>, bondrock@att.net says...
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot. >>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Yet he's leading the polls.
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted >of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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..
Scout <me4guns@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
In article <uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less convicted >>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
--bks
But not Trump.
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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.
Scout <me4guns@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/>
On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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 bigNone of which disqualify him.
exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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 bigNone of which disqualify him.
exceptions.
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").
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and whoNone of which disqualify him.
cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
On 1/18/2024 8:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uobgvb$2l57l$5@dont-email.me...
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
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.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uobgvb$2l57l$5@dont-email.me...
David Hartung <junk@LCMS_shitbags.org> wrote in
news:iOaqN.51021$Sf59.9103@fx48.iad:
On 1/18/2024 4:18 AM, scooter lied:There have been LOTS of people charged with Seditious Conspiracy
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
Yea, and what does that have to do with insurrection?
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and whoNone of which disqualify him.
cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and whoNone of which disqualify him.
cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's >actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public >opinion").
If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Not by itself it doesn't.
It does.
Only leftists say so.
He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
opinion").
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under
14.3.
How is that constitutional?
Especially since the majority want Trump because
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
--bks
On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad... >>>
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com >>>>>> wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who >>>>>>> cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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?
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: ><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message news:sWhqN.222959$7sbb.133801@fx16.iad...
On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad... >>>>
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>>> exceptions.
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.
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
"Bradley K. Sherman"Â wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
| 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.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
|
| 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.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
  --bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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 bigNone of which disqualify him.
exceptions.
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
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
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.]
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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?
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and whoNone of which disqualify him.
cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.]
"Winston" wrote in message news:ydmst2txlm.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and whoNone of which disqualify him.
cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: >><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l
l s h i t.
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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 bigNone of which disqualify him.
exceptions.
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.]
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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 bigNone of which disqualify him.
exceptions.
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
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message >news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: >>><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l
l s h i t.
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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com >>>>>> wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who >>>>>>> cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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.]
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.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message >>news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>>>>convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you: >>>><https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u
l
l s h i t.
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.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president,
with four big exceptions.
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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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
pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>> exceptions.
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.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist
have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of >>insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:uuvjqi16psa1pkt166kmlc50mf0mmke9gr@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, >>>>>>> with four big exceptions.
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.
In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1@dont-email.me>, chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com
says...
pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for
president, with four big exceptions.
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?
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message news:ydil3qtuay.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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.
-WBEÂ [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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:46:38 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
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.
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?
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of >>insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
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?
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.
On 1/19/2024 3:41 AM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message news:ydil3qtuay.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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.
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
None is needed.
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>>> convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l s
h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have been
tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
In article <0cxqN.145928$yEgf.17208@fx09.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
None is needed.
So you don't believe in rule of law.
In article <0cxqN.145928$yEgf.17208@fx09.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
None is needed.
So you don't believe in rule of law. What an asswipe.
In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...leftist
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
tRumphave NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org says...
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
| 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.
| ...
sedition.html>
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
|
| 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.
| ...
spiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
means b u l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org says...
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
| 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.
| ...
sedition.html>
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
|
| 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.
| ...
spiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
means b u l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...leftist
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
tRumphave NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
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/
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> >wrote:
pothead wrote:<snip>
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
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
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:03:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
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
"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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
In article <uoeq6h$3ag70$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>,leftist
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
tRumphave NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
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-t
he-
ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-
holding-office/
I don't really care.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
In article <uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
| 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.
| ...
sedition.html>
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
|
| 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.
| ...
spiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
means b u l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?
Huh?
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:uoer20$3amvn$1@dont-email.me:
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in messageThe Constitution sets out some basic requirements. Not up for mob rule.
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
And its not "anti-democratic left" - support for the Constitution is
across all idiologial divisions.
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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?
"Josh Rosenbluth"Â wrote in message news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me...
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
A court packed with Democrat voters/anti-Trumpers.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in >news:MPG.4014458a614a8f0990d6f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1@dont-email.me>, chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com
says...
pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for
president, with four big exceptions.
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.
In article <uoe4ou$36mvn$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >says...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:uuvjqi16psa1pkt166kmlc50mf0mmke9gr@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), potheadBullshit! We don't "let the voters decide" on age, citizenship,
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president,
with four big exceptions.
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.
residency. And with tRump the voters DID decide - and now tRump is
facing CRIMINAL charges.
The voters have him way ahead in the polls.
"Baxter"Â wrote in message news:uoe5aa$36mvn$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014458a614a8f0990d6f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1@dont-email.me>, chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com
says...
pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for
president, with four big exceptions.
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?
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in >news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:And the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that finding.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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"Â wrote in message news:uofah1$3crg9$5@dont-email.me...SCOTUS cares, Andrea, you lying trolling Nazi whore.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:And the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that finding.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
   -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Who cares about the Supreme Court of Colorado?
In article <UbxqN.145924$yEgf.47887@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
On 1/19/2024 3:41 AM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydil3qtuay.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>>>> exceptions.
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?
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:uuvjqi16psa1pkt166kmlc50mf0mmke9gr@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), potheadBullshit! We don't "let the voters decide" on age, citizenship,
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president andNone of which disqualify him.
who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for president, >>>>>>>> with four big exceptions.
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.
residency.
And with tRump the voters DID decide - and now tRump is
facing CRIMINAL charges.
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
None is needed.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:l8pkqih0n8earq8a3mbru9o15jatq08k5a@4ax.com:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
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.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist >>>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of >>>insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
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?
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
And the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that finding.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:cm7mqilfiq27mekbb48ujflefd0jkhujvq@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On 1/19/2024 6:51 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling Nazi whore, lied:
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me...
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
A court packed with Democrat voters/anti-Trumpers.
Bullshit, Andrea, you lying trolling Nazi whore.
On 1/19/2024 8:32 PM, Andrew W wrote:
"Baxter" wrote in message news:uoe5aa$36mvn$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014458a614a8f0990d6f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uocl8d$2r3qo$1@dont-email.me>, chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com
says...
pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and >>>> >>>>>> who cannot. It says any American citizen can run forNone of which disqualify him.
president, with four big exceptions.
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?
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.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
less convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
sedition.html>
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
spiracy-verdict/>
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
means b u l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4014641eb70ec980990da5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <0cxqN.145928$yEgf.17208@fx09.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
None is needed.
So you don't believe in rule of law. What an asswipe.
The 14th Amendment IS law.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comleftist
says...
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
tRumphave NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
insurrection.
You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:46:38 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com >>>>>> wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who >>>>>>> cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
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.
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?
"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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:uoer20$3amvn$1@dont-email.me:
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in messageThe Constitution sets out some basic requirements.
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Not up for mob rule.
And its not "anti-democratic left" - support for the Constitution is
across all idiologial divisions.
"Governor Swill" wrote in message news:s10kqi5it557f2vkl2lm67pedrd4llovmm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> >>wrote:
pothead wrote:<snip>
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
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
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:cm7mqilfiq27mekbb48ujflefd0jkhujvq@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWrong - two courts in Colorado found the insurrection clause applied to tRump.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Finding of Fact - SCOTUS usually doesn't deal with Findings of
Fact - so don't hold your breath on that point.
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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" wrote in message news:uoe5aa$36mvn$4@dont-email.me...
============
Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the
original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible
to hold government office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection- >>conservatives.html
============
You don't get more conservative than the Federalist Society.
Did the law professors say that after leftists told them that Trump
told his supporters to be violent and overthrow the election and the government, which he didn't?
In article <44GqN.151257$yEgf.67680@fx09.iad>, "because_\\shitbag \\_was_taken"@gmail.com says...
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
You are way over the line. If you are qualified then the voters should decide. Trump is qualified.
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >news:cm7mqilfiq27mekbb48ujflefd0jkhujvq@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWrong - two courts in Colorado found the insurrection clause applied to >tRump. Finding of Fact - SCOTUS usually doesn't deal with Findings of
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Fact - so don't hold your breath on that point.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:46:38 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.None of which disqualify him.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's >>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public >>>> opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd >>>> question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even >>>> been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE
Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
Swill
Add "and not tie him up in court so he can particpate in a fair
contest" and we just might agree.
Why doesn’t he just comply with and resolve the court cases swiftly, so
that he can be free of them instead of delaying and deferring? After all,
he will win the cases and be found not guilty, won’t he?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40157039e01cae24990def@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <44GqN.151257$yEgf.67680@fx09.iad>, "because_\\shitbag \\_was_taken"@gmail.com says...
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
You are way over the line. If you are qualified then the voters should decide. Trump is qualified.
That's your "opinion", other more knowledgable people think otherwise.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uofah1$3crg9$5@dont-email.me...
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:uof7eq$3ce51$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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."
"On Nov. 17, Colorado 2nd Judicial District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace ruled
that Secretary of State Jena Griswold cannot remove former President Donald J.
Trump from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado, rejecting the argument that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment precludes Trump from holding office again. "
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/denver-district-court-trump-disqualification-challenge-dismissed
So much for that claim.
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message news:uoer20$3amvn$1@dont-email.me...
"Josh Rosenbluth"Â 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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
Which has been highlighted this year as the DNC is telling voters they don’t
care how the people vote.
"Governor Swill"Â wrote in message
news:s10kqi5it557f2vkl2lm67pedrd4llovmm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> >>> wrote:
pothead wrote:<snip>
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
<wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
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
So Swill, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the DNC telling voters that how they vote won't matter because the electors will be told by the DNC how to
vote.
That the DNC and the DNC alone will pick who wins the nomination regardless of
how the people vote.
In article <44GqN.151257$yEgf.67680@fx09.iad>, "because_\\shitbag \\_was_taken"@gmail.com says...
On 1/19/2024 1:54 PM, Andrea W, stupid lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Josh Rosenbluth"Â wrote in message news:uoeb0q$37p4b$2@dont-email.me... >>>>
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
Shouldn't the voters decide who should be disqualified and who they want to vote
for?
No, just as the voters don't get to elect a naturalized citizen or someone age
26 to the presidency, Andrea, you stupid lying Nazi whore.
You are way over the line. If you are qualified then the voters should decide.
Trump is qualified.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified >>>>>> under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>> accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>> to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was >> filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3.
The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
for the events on Jan 6th.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on
this matter and
How can you have an insurrection.. if no one has been shown to have engaged in
insurrection?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
The requirement of insurrection would require criminal charges and conviction.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted?
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>> to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3.
The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection. It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
convicted of statutory insurrection. Insurrection is not just a statutory crime
? it is a description of an event. The storming of Congress by Nazis on 01/06/2021 was an insurrection.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on
this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
How can you have an insurrection.. if no one has been shown to have engaged in
insurrection?
People, including Trump, have been shown to have engaged in insurrection.
On 1/20/2024 7:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted?
Not needed.
In article <eeTqN.116709$q3F7.66677@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
On 1/20/2024 7:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted?
Not needed.
Then why were the other people?
In article <5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3.
The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an
insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection. It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
convicted of statutory insurrection. Insurrection is not just a statutory crime
? it is a description of an event. The storming of Congress by Nazis on
01/06/2021 was an insurrection.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on
this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
How can you have an insurrection.. if no one has been shown to have engaged in
insurrection?
People, including Trump, have been shown to have engaged in insurrection.
No charges.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
The requirement of insurrection would require criminal charges and conviction.
Why are you still arguing against the obvious?
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:>
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:>>>On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
as mereOn 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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
There was aaccusation being sufficient.
-WBE IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
is subjecttrial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
charges. Ato judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
trialcivil 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
accusers? Was he representedand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his
by counsel who argued his case for him.court, irrelevant and
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo
powerless.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers? Was he represented
by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court, irrelevant and
powerless.
Swill
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers? Was he represented
by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court, irrelevant and
powerless.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court, irrelevant and powerless.
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
A civil trial requires no indictment nor booking. He had the right to
attend, although I don't think he did (his choice). He was represented
by counsel who argued the case, called their own witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses who testified against Trump.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:There
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >>news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
chargesis subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
Was he booked?
Did he attend?
Face his accusers?
Was he represented
by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met,
said trial was a kangaroo court, irrelevant and powerless.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:uofidb$3hpnh$1@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" wrote in message news:uoe5aa$36mvn$4@dont-email.me...
What?! you think conservative law professors can't evaluate the facts============
Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6
Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the >>>original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible
to hold government office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/trump-jan-6-insurrection- >>>conservatives.html
============
You don't get more conservative than the Federalist Society.
Did the law professors say that after leftists told them that Trump
told his supporters to be violent and overthrow the election and the
government, which he didn't?
and make up their own minds?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in >news:MPG.40157039e01cae24990def@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <44GqN.151257$yEgf.67680@fx09.iad>, "because_\\shitbag
\\_was_taken"@gmail.com says...
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
You are way over the line. If you are qualified then the voters should
decide. Trump is qualified.
That's your "opinion", other more knowledgable people think otherwise.
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@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.
NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges >>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), BaxterThere
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >>>news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
chargesis subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
What?!! You want names?!! from 150 years ago?!!
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- >email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:24:31 -0800, David Hartung ><shithole.starkville@southern.traitors.r.us> wrote:
On 1/21/2024 8:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges >>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the
aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that
former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the
Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not
seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded Congress >> with _thousands of amnesty requests_ [link in original] to “remove” their >> Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood themselves to
be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the window
for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment was >> ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3 disqualification
for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act of May
22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as >> Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled to
be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be
disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification
in 1868 and Congress’s passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied to >> former Confederates.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
Document at the second link has names. Read it.
Thanks, Rudy! Good job on that one!
Swill
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was >>>>> a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>> to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant >>> to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes
insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of
whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
Insurrection is not just a statutory crime — it is a description of an >event.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
The requirement of insurrection would require criminal charges and conviction.
Why are you still arguing against the obvious?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40157039e01cae24990def@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <44GqN.151257$yEgf.67680@fx09.iad>, "because_\\shitbag
\\_was_taken"@gmail.com says...
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
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
You are way over the line. If you are qualified then the voters should
decide. Trump is qualified.
That's your "opinion", other more knowledgable people think otherwise.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:pkqnqipub51mm9b1ao92qgkvmi4h5pbqh6@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
The requirement of insurrection would require criminal charges and
conviction.
Nope - look at the history: NONE of those barred after the 14th was
passed were convicted of insurrection.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was >>>>>> a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >>news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), BaxterThere
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in >>>news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
chargesis subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
What?!! You want names?!! from 150 years ago?!!
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Section 3, also known as the Disqualification Clause, has gained new relevance in the wake of the January 6th insurrection,
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWhere in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
Show us the exact quote.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:uojhci$86i3$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>> decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
A civil trial requires no indictment nor booking. He had the right to
attend, although I don't think he did (his choice). He was represented
by counsel who argued the case, called their own witnesses, and
cross-examined witnesses who testified against Trump.
Nowhere in the 14th amandment section 3 does it say anything about
conviction or even indictment.
Historially, none of the Confederates barred from office were tried for insurrection.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- >>email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>> was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot. >>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
What's your fav excuse?
1. bamboo ballots
2. magic thermostats
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- >email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
    -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>>>> to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Without proper due process
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a >>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject >>>>>> to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to >>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an >>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
Insurrection is not just a statutory crime — it is a description of an event.
We don't punish people because of an invented description.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in
insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
I'm glad she has an opinion,
but without a criminal trial
Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal trial, scooter.
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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? >>>>
filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to >>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an >>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison term
of 20 years; insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Seditious
conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
Irrelevant.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Insurrection is not just a statutory crime ? it is a description of an event.
We don't punish people because of an invented description.
It's not invented.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in >> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
I'm glad she has an opinion,
An informed legal opinion.
but without a criminal trial
No. Section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require a criminal trial.
Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
Her ruling was appealed to the Colorado supreme court, which upheld her finding
regarding insurrection.
given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
That's false. We know the violent storming of the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an
insurrection. This is settled.
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges >>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
disqualified, scooter.
much less did so after they were pardoned.
There were no pardons, scooter.
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
    -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal >> conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal >> trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
In article <9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law, was
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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? >>>>>>
filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to >>>>>> 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection
and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an >>>>>> insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison term
of 20 years; insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. Seditious
conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Of course, as long as you "win".
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
statutory crime of insurrection.
None or
Insurrection is not just a statutory crime ? it is a description of an event.
We don't punish people because of an invented description.
It's not invented.
It's a description, not a crime.
so there has never been a legal finding of facts on this matter and
That's false. Judge Wallace meticulously examined what constitutes an in >>>> insurrection and concluded one occurred on 01/06/2021. She is correct.
I'm glad she has an opinion,
An informed legal opinion.
A biased opinion.
but without a criminal trial
No. Section 3 of the 14th amendment does not require a criminal trial.
Further, seems to me like a valid cause to overturn her ruling
Her ruling was appealed to the Colorado supreme court, which upheld her finding
regarding insurrection.
and she still lost.
given that there is no actual evidence of any insurrection
That's false. We know the violent storming of the Capitol on 01/06/2021 was an
insurrection. This is settled.
None.
In article <ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges >>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
disqualified, scooter.
Were you there?
much less did so after they were pardoned.
There were no pardons, scooter.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
charges. A civil court can not determine if someone
committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without charges >>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were disqualified, scooter.
much less did so after they were pardoned.
There were no pardons, scooter.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Running for Office is a privilege - not a right.
The REQUIREMENT set by
the 14th is not a criminal or even a civil penalty - it is a REQUIREMENT
and nothing else.
On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWhere in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
Show us the exact quote.
5th Amendment.
No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being required
in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>> mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>>> was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
charges. A civil court can not determine if someone
committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and agreed with that part of the decision.
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- >>> email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh RosenbluthNo, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>> was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC? >>>>>
law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>> pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what
constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the >>>>> event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. >>>>> Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Seditious
conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
Irrelevant.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and
convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the statutory crime of insurrection.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote: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 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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? >>>>>>
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison >> term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
Post the definition.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
the mythical insurrection
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:24:31 -0800, David Hartung <shithole.starkville@southern.traitors.r.us> wrote:
On 1/21/2024 8:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the
aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that
former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the >> Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not
seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded Congress
with _thousands of amnesty requests_ [link in original] to "remove" their
Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood themselves to >> be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the window >> for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3 disqualification
for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act of May
22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as
Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled to >> be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be
disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification >> in 1868 and Congress's passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied to
former Confederates.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
Document at the second link has names. Read it.
Thanks, Rudy! Good job on that one!
Swill
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal
trial in and of itself, scooter.
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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? >>>>>>
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
they did something.
No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional "right" to run for president, scooter.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
trial, scooter.
So you can't read either?
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
of itself, scooter.
Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters
It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime"
He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad:
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal
trial in and of itself, scooter.
For instance, Eminent Domain requires Due Process and is NOT a criminal matter at all.
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>> Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in the 14th
sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications due to a finding
in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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? >>>>>>>>
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter. >> That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Irrelevant.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection. >>>>
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves" >> that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the >>>> statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
In article <r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
they did something.
No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional >> "right" to run for president, scooter.
Nobody said that.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
trial, scooter.
So you can't read either?
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
of itself, scooter.
You don't believe in due process.
Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters
It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime"
He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."
Because he is not guilty.
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
"proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
didn't try to get Trump.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
"proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
didn't try to get Trump.
============
Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
in court filing
Jack Smith has detailed more evidence he plans to introduce at Trump's
trial.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-6-attack-trump-intended-special-counsel- claims/story?id=105398386
=============
and if you read the 14.3, "or given aid or comfort" to the
insurrectionists.
Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>> Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in
the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications
due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>> trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
and which court stated they were barred from office without a
conviction
None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew
they were disqualified, scooter.
No,
Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who had
sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew they were disqualified.
much less did so after they were pardoned.
There were no pardons, scooter.
Then you apparently don't know history
There were no pardons issued to people who were disqualified under 14.3
that removed their disqualification, scooter.
The removal of 14.3 disqualifications could *only* come from Congress, >scooter.
That's why the southern traitors sent their amnesty petitions to Congress, scooter, and not to the pardon office.
On 1/22/2024 12:34 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWhere in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>> Show us the exact quote.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers? >>>>>> Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court, >>>>>> irrelevant and powerless.
5th Amendment.
No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being
required in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
So we can deny your liberties.. just because?
No, scooter.
There is no liberty interest to be considered eligible to run for
president,
scooter. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not run for president, and no liberty
has been denied to him, scooter.
And furthermore, he hasn't been denied due process, either. He simply
isn't eligible, scooter.
Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad:
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminalFor instance, Eminent Domain requires Due Process and is NOT a criminal matter at all.
trial in and of itself, scooter.
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
We don't remove people's rights just because you claim they did
something.
No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an
unconditional "right" to run for president, scooter.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
So you can't read either?
I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial
in and of itself, scooter.
Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal
matters
It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime"
He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter. Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret >>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
charges. A civil court can not determine if someone
committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January >>>>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and >>> agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," scooter.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:24:31 -0800, David Hartung
<shithole.starkville@southern.traitors.r.us> wrote:
On 1/21/2024 8:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though >>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the
aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood
that
former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before
the
Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely
did not
seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded
Congress
with _thousands of amnesty requests_ [link in original] to "remove"
their
Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood
themselves to
be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the
window
for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment
was
ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3
disqualification
for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act
of May
22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as >>> Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled >>> to
be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be
disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment's
ratification
in 1868 and Congress's passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied
to
former Confederates.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
Document at the second link has names. Read it.
Thanks, Rudy! Good job on that one!
Swill
Military officers who served the U.S. before the War, who became members
of the Confederate military during the War, pretty clearly meet the
criteria, and, because of 14.3, would have been barred from continuing
to serve in comparable positions after the War. While that doesn't
apply to enlisted men (14.3 says not just anyone, but members of
specific groups who have done as described), that could still be
hundreds or thousands of people from just that group. Their service
record alone would be sufficient, I would expect.
The people of the time pretty clearly viewed the War as qualifying as an insurrection or rebellion, as evidenced by those terms being the ones
used in the amendment. OTOH, J6 was mostly unarmed people milling about
and listening to speeches and didn't last for years, so there's
considerably less agreement among citizenry at large about it qualifying
as an actual insurrection (as opposed to that term being pushed for the express political purpose of being used to keep Trump from ever running again).
-WBE
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>> mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There >>>>>>>>> was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in >>>>>>>> DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>>>> pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what
constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that >>>>>>> the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged >>>>>>> in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:decision
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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
chargesThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>> trial14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, >>>>>>>>>> 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even >>>>>>>> though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those
eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com============
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
"proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
and convicted of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
didn't try to get Trump.
Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
in court filing
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in the >>> 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications due to a >>> finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
How can you establish what someone engaged in such without a criminal trial?
I mean the person has rights.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC? >>>>>>>>
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
Indeed,
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Indeed,
Another scooterism ? empty wheeze.
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:===============
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>> trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>> ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified. >>>
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from any future office.
On 1/23/2024 4:46 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:s4CrN.221409$Ama9.149297@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:34 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWhere in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers? >>>>>>> Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court, >>>>>>> irrelevant and powerless.
5th Amendment.
No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being required
in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
So we can deny your liberties.. just because?
No, scooter.
There is no liberty interest to be considered eligible to run for president,
Sure there is.
No, scooter, there isn't.
scooter. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not run for president, and no liberty has
been denied to him, scooter.
Sure it has.
No, scooter.
And furthermore, he hasn't been denied due process, either. He simply isn't
eligible, scooter.
Ah, but that's just it.. Trump is eligible and
No, scooter. He engaged in insurrection after swearing to support/defend/preserve/protect the Constitution, so he is ineligible.
Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.
True, as far as it goes.
No, scooter ? just *true*, full stop.
In article <dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>> disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal
indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Indeed,
Another scooterism ? empty wheeze.
Fani and her boyfriend are going down.
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in >>>> the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications >>>> due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, Scout wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about criminal behavior.
On 1/23/2024 4:46 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s4CrN.221409$Ama9.149297@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:34 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh RosenbluthWhere in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted? >>>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>>> trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his
accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo
court,
irrelevant and powerless.
5th Amendment.
No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being
required in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
So we can deny your liberties.. just because?
No, scooter.
There is no liberty interest to be considered eligible to run for
president,
Sure there is.
No, scooter, there isn't.
scooter. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not run for president, and no liberty >>> has been denied to him, scooter.
Sure it has.
No, scooter.
On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>> >>>>
January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a >>>>>>> criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a >>>>>>> criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed >>>>> and
agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," scooter.
Then he's not disqualified.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:===============
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>> trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>> ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even >>>>>>>>>> though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified. >>>>
eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>>>> mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in >>>>>>>>>> DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that >>>>>>>>> state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed >>>>>>>>> what constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded >>>>>>>>> that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump >>>>>>>>> engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret >>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened >>>>> >>>>>>> in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot >>>>> >>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 >>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by >>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter. >>>>>
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>>>>>>> pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the
event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>> disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal
indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:===============
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>> trial
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>> ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified. >>>>>
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:19:36 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>>
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot. >>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
What's your fav excuse?
1. bamboo ballots
2. magic thermostats
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
Don't forget Jewish space lasers reprogramming voting machines.
Swill
14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support/preserve/ protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection.
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the
event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>> disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal
indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the counts, too.
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:===============
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote inWho were these "tens of thousands"?
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>> trial
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>> ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified. >>>>>
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. You keep
trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ffSrN.44071$SyNd.3238@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:53 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a >>>>>> criminal conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
Yes, but
No "but," scooter.
Then the 14th doesn?t apply.
It does, scooter. 14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support/preserve/protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection.
In article <GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
  -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the
event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it.
Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>>>> disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them connected
to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four federal >>>> indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the submission
of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection.
Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found
massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the >> counts, too.
But not insurrection.
In article <QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified. >>>>>>>
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:===============
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote inWho were these "tens of thousands"?
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>>>> trial
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>> ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. You keep
trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
Yet still no insurrection.
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about
14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support/preserve/
protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection.
whether Trump engaged in insurrection,
14.3 only applies to people who take an oath "as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States."
So, for example, officers of county and municipal governments could
take an oath to support the Constitution and afterwards engage in
blatant insurrection, and still be eligible to run for POTUS because
they are not prohibited persons.
Some legal scholars have theorized that POTUS is not "an officer
of the United States" so 14.3 doesn't even apply to POTUS.
In article <SkVrN.44863$Iswd.41371@fx05.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffSrN.44071$SyNd.3238@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:53 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a >>>>>>>> criminal conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
Yes, but
No "but," scooter.
Then the 14th doesn?t apply.
It does, scooter. 14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to
support/preserve/protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in
insurrection.
But since he didn't.
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had been
pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated
to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter. >>>
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about
14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support/preserve/
protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection.
whether Trump engaged in insurrection, BUT:
14.3 only applies to people who take an oath "as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States."
So, for example, officers of county and municipal governments could
take an oath to support the Constitution and afterwards engage in
blatant insurrection, and still be eligible to run for POTUS because
they are not prohibited persons.
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS eligibility are absurd.
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction. >>>>>Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction >>>> is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure,
scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS eligibility are absurd.
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:42:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/23/2024 1:35 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
I'm not going to get into a pissing match about
14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to support/preserve/ >>>> protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection. >>>>
whether Trump engaged in insurrection, BUT:
14.3 only applies to people who take an oath "as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States."
So, for example, officers of county and municipal governments could
take an oath to support the Constitution and afterwards engage in
blatant insurrection, and still be eligible to run for POTUS because
they are not prohibited persons.
In this context "State" covers local officials as well.
No, it doesn't. If the "context" includes local, it also includes Federal.
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
eligibility are absurd.
Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
ratified.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had been
pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated
to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>>>>>> trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, >>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even >>>>>>>>>> though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
and which court stated they were barred from office without a
conviction
None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew >>>>>>> they were disqualified, scooter.
No,
Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who had >>>>> sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew they were
disqualified.
Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
What I know are facts.
And yet,
Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffSrN.44071$SyNd.3238@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:53 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh RosenbluthThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a >>>>>>>>>>> trial
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, >>>>>>>>>>> 2021
through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a >>>>>>> criminal conviction.
Where does it say that?
Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
Yes, but
No "but," scooter.
Then the 14th doesn’t apply.
It does,
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted >>>>>>>>> >>>> aas 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require >>>>>>>>> a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a >>>>>>>>> criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed >>>>>>> and
agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer,"
scooter.
Then he's not disqualified.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter. >>>
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
eligibility are absurd.
Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
ratified.
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trialThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even >>>>>>>>>>>> though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to >>>>>>>>> be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those >>>>>> eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
===============or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had been
pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated
to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened >>>>>>>>>>>> in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot >>>>>>>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously >>>>>>>>>>> reviewed what constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, >>>>>>>>>>> and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection >>>>>>>>>>> and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the
four federal indictments for election interference. For example,
coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but >>> not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to >>> states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime >>> not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that
happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the
ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 >>>>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>> >>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>> >>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty >>>>>>> by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter. >>>>>>>
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a >>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for >>>>>>> being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory insurrection, scooter.
In article <uor59v$1r3ma$11@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty >>>>>>>>> by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter. >>>>>>>>>
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a >>>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for >>>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.
Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
He said Rittenhouse was guilty too.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote inThey didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted". >>>>>
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about >>>> criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
interpret
as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that
happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>> >>>>>> ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 >>>>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>> >>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>> >>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty >>>>>>> by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter. >>>>>>>
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a >>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for >>>>>>> being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.
Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
On 1/23/2024 8:07 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inNobody argued that 14.3 disqualified Andrew Johnson or Ulysses Grant.
news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
eligibility are absurd.
Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
ratified.
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote inThey didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted". >>>>>
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...been
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had
adjudicated===============pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally
Sectionto be disqualified and barred from public office under
1868.3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in
sure.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
He's ahead of Joe.
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that
the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged
in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the
submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the
insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying
that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the >>>> insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the
counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months, scooter. The indictments were
handed down last August.
You always lie, scooter, and you always get caught.
On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trialThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted aNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without >>>>>>>>>> charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. You keep
trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
events don't disqualify you
Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend the Constitution disqualifies you, scooter.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401aa8a8913dca64990fe9 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...been
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had
adjudicated===============pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally
Sectionto be disqualified and barred from public office under
1868.3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in
sure.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
He's ahead of Joe.
Really?! Biden won New Hampshire and he wasn't even on the ballot.
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote inThey didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing >>>>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted". >>>>>>>
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
In article <nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that
the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged
in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the
submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the
insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying
that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the >>>>>> insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the
counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months, scooter. The indictments were
handed down last August.
You always lie, scooter, and you always get caught.
8 years
In article <oO9sN.53939$5Hnd.13090@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trialThe District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted aNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>>>
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit. You keep
trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
events don't disqualify you
Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend the >> Constitution disqualifies you, scooter.
But he didn't.
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they would have use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
In article <uorb18$1rsah$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401aa8a8913dca64990fe9
@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.combeen
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's
trialNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though they were never convicted and in fact had
adjudicated===============pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally
Sectionto be disqualified and barred from public office under
1868.3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in
sure.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for
Really?! Biden won New Hampshire and he wasn't even on the ballot.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of >>>>>>>>> those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from >>>>>> any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
He's ahead of Joe.
Biden didn't win shit.
In article <uorbgb$1rsah$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they would have >> use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
He's still on the ballot.
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>> indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists.
Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
You lied then.
No.
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote inThey didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. >>>>>>>>> Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted". >>>>>>
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not
about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed,
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they would
have
use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter. >>>
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Running for Office is a privilege - not a right.
The REQUIREMENT set by
the 14th is not a criminal or even a civil penalty - it is a REQUIREMENT
and nothing else.
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:uojhci$86i3$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>> decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
A civil trial requires no indictment nor booking. He had the right to
attend, although I don't think he did (his choice). He was represented
by counsel who argued the case, called their own witnesses, and
cross-examined witnesses who testified against Trump.
Nowhere in the 14th amandment section 3 does it say anything about
conviction or even indictment.
Historially, none of the Confederates barred from office were tried for insurrection.
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they would
have
use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in news:Tx3sN.76203$TSTa.41676@fx47.iad:
On 1/23/2024 8:07 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inNobody argued that 14.3 disqualified Andrew Johnson or Ulysses Grant.
news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote inAs it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil >>>>>>> measure, scooter.
Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3 >>>>>> and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
It's before the SCOTUS right now.
eligibility are absurd.
Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
ratified.
Because they were't Confederate insurrectionists. But plenty of
Confederate insurrectionists DID get disqualified.
On 1/24/2024 5:37 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RkVrN.44862$Iswd.10864@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer,"
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty ofThere 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> conducted >>>> a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not >>>>>>>>>>> require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply >>>>>>>>>>> a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court
reviewed and
agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and >>>>>>>
scooter.
Then he's not disqualified.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
If it doesn't say it
Then crime is not implicated in it,
On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's
trialNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated >>>>>>>>>>> to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of >>>>>>>>>>> the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>>
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those >>>>>>>> eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit.
You keep trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already
failed.
events don't disqualify you
Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend
the Constitution disqualifies you
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401aa8a8913dca64990fe9 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.combeen
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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.
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
state's
trialis 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
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
January 6, 2021 through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
without
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
even though they were never convicted and in fact had
adjudicated===============pardoned.
Who were these "tens of thousands"?
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally
Sectionto be disqualified and barred from public office under
1868.3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in
sure.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for
Really?! Biden won New Hampshire and he wasn't even on the ballot.
Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
any future office.
Then why is he running and winning?
He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.
He's ahead of Joe.
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot >>>>>>>>>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 >>>>>>>>>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>>>>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the >>>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example,
coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, >>>>> but not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a
letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud"
also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the
appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be
convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com >>>>>>>> says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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
happenedas 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been
charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>> >>>> charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty >>>>>>>>> by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty,
scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a >>>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for >>>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uojitv$8j9n$3@dont-email.me...
Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in news:uojhci$86i3$4@dont-email.me:
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>> decision is subject to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. >>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
irrelevant and powerless.
A civil trial requires no indictment nor booking. He had the right to
attend, although I don't think he did (his choice). He was represented
by counsel who argued the case, called their own witnesses, and
cross-examined witnesses who testified against Trump.
Nowhere in the 14th amandment section 3 does it say anything about conviction or even indictment.
Historially, none of the Confederates barred from office were tried for insurrection.
Were they bared, or was it merely assumed they were?
Assumption is not a basis for law.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed
what constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded
that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>> engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating >>>>>> the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected
to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely
saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to
the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate >>>> court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some >>>> of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed
what constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded
that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump
engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>
disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating
the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected
to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely
saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to
the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate
court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some
of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous election-related
crimes, scooter.
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its
wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th
(prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists.
Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have
such disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is
not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
In article <uorbgb$1rsah$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they
would have use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
He's still on the ballot.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401ae2eeab1b44e8991017@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uorbgb$1rsah$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad:
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
If the writers of the 14th had intended for criminal trials they
would have use the word "convicted" - they didn't.
He's still on the ballot.
Question is: will he still be on the ballot in November?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its
wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th
(prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists.
Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have
such disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is
not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about "convicted".
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th,
its wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the
18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding in a
criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3
is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th,
its wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the
18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding in a
criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3
is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
- if there was, tRump wasn't involved
- if he was involved, he had absolute immunity
- if he doesn't have immunity, the 14th doesn't apply because he's not
an officer
- 14th doesn't apply because he'd not been convicted
- yadda, yadda
- rinse, repeat
Conservaturds are just throwing catsup/spaghetti at the wall hoping
something will stick.
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bO9sN.53928$5Hnd.5817@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:33 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_kVrN.44867$Iswd.30831@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote inWho were these "tens of thousands"?
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and which court stated they were barred from office without a >>>>>>>>>>>> conviction
None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already >>>>>>>>>>> knew they were disqualified, scooter.
No,
Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who >>>>>>>>> had sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew they >>>>>>>>> were disqualified.
Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
What I know are facts.
And yet,
Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.
Another Rudyism:
Nope.
Rudy denies
Nope.
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aO9sN.53927$5Hnd.36079@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its >>>>>>>>>>> wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. >>>>>>>>>> Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
You lied then.
No.
....and you're lying now.
No.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its
wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th
(prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists.
Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have
such disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is
not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about "convicted".
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th,
its wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the
18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding in a
criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3
is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of >>>>>>> them connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed >>>>>>> in the four federal indictments for election interference. For
example, coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is >>>>>>> a crime, but not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to >>>>>>> send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive >>>>>>> "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the
appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be
convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous election-related crimes, scooter.
On 1/24/2024 8:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oO9sN.53939$5Hnd.13090@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's
trialNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>
disqualified.
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of >>>>>>>>>> those eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging
fuckwit. You keep trying the same gags, over and over, after they've >>>>> already failed.
events don't disqualify you
Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend
the Constitution disqualifies you
Ok.. and such participation is a federal crime.
Not necessarily
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
happenedThere 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was
convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required >>>>>>>>>>> for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>> >Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh >>>>>>>>>>> penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, >>>>>>>>>>> scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's >>>>>>>>>>> a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria >>>>>>>>>>> for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory >>>>> insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No
In article <uosjsa$25pob$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to have such disqualifications due to a finding in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word >>>>>>>>>>>> "convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 >>>>>>>>>> is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
- if there was, tRump wasn't involved
- if he was involved, he had absolute immunity
- if he doesn't have immunity, the 14th doesn't apply because he's not
an officer
- 14th doesn't apply because he'd not been convicted
- yadda, yadda
- rinse, repeat
Conservaturds are just throwing catsup/spaghetti at the wall hoping
something will stick.
There was no insurrection.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them >>>>>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the >>>>>>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example, >>>>>>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to
states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime
not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate
court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some
of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:uosjsa$25pob$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or
even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th,
its wording prevails, just like the 21st repealed the
18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding in a
criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3
is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
Yep, and you have no proof that there was.
Not a single individual was even indicted for such an offense much less convicted.
Baxter's level of proof: It did because I said so. So there.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of >>>>>>> them connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed >>>>>>> in the four federal indictments for election interference. For >>>>>>> example, coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is >>>>>>> a crime, but not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to >>>>>>> send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive >>>>>>> "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the
appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be >>>>> convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments Democrats have brought against him.. why should I assume this one has any more validity than all those already shown to be baseless accusations?
On 1/25/2024 7:32 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eesN.68804$GX69.50271@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aO9sN.53927$5Hnd.36079@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its >>>>>>>>>>>>> wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
You lied then.
No.
....and you're lying now.
No.
What a lie.
No
On 1/25/2024 7:37 AM, scooter lied:pdf&INDEX=TRUE
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eesN.68802$GX69.58440@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:52 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qO9sN.53940$5Hnd.8341@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:37 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RkVrN.44862$Iswd.10864@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
thoseThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ofThere has been no criminal trail held to evaluate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
conducted >>>> aNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.charges. A civil court can not determine if someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>
trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> on >>>> January
6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails.
Nope.
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and
agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial >>>>>>>>>>>> and
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," >>>>>>>>>>> scooter.
Then he's not disqualified.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil >>>>>>> measure, scooter.
If it doesn't say it
Then crime is not implicated in it, scooter.
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID= 038100029123013004081076092012126085063074048044030088076020003023091081126066114119002123033063023055035076100026103098095122049087078093002006080104097100124028029062086105070122085106093090085022001031069013072001083101096090106125121103100064017&EXT=
If there is no crime, there was no violation,
No, scooter. 14.3 is civil, scooter.
Because you say so?
No
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required >>>>>>>>>>> for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charge than insurrection.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of >>>>>>>>> them connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed >>>>>>>>> in the four federal indictments for election interference. For >>>>>>>>> example, coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors >>>>>>>>> is a crime, but not connected to the insurrection. Directing the >>>>>>>>> DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found >>>>>>>>> massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection. >>>>>>>>
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the >>>>>>> appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be >>>>>>> convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments
On 1/25/2024 7:31 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeesN.68805$GX69.65573@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bO9sN.53928$5Hnd.5817@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:33 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_kVrN.44867$Iswd.30831@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote inWho were these "tens of thousands"?
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and which court stated they were barred from office without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conviction
None — the people petitioning for removal of disability >>>>>>>>>>>>> already knew they were disqualified, scooter.
No,
Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders >>>>>>>>>>> who had sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew >>>>>>>>>>> they were disqualified.
Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
What I know are facts.
And yet,
Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.
Another Rudyism:
Nope.
Rudy denies
Nope.
Rudy provides
the proof
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
happenedThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ofTrump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
01/06/2021in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
chargedwas an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was >>>>>>>>>>>>> > convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh >>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, >>>>>>>>>>>>> scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with
statutory insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting
that a criminal conviction is required in order to invoke
disqualification. You're just wrong. I've offered links to multiple
papers by legal scholars that would elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but >>> you're too stupid and stubborn to read them. So, in the end, it comes
down to: you are wrong, because I say you are wrong. Sorry, but you're
just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a drunken Virginia camper, but >>> those are not what's important here at the moment).
But you have no proof.
No
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
happenedThere 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 >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>
chargedin that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>> charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory >>>>>> insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're just
wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that would >> elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to read
them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say you are
wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a drunken
Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the moment).
But you have no proof.
No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
with *no* criminal trial.
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the >>>>>>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example, >>>>>>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to
states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime
not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate
court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some
of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments against Trump
are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We [meaning only Trump] did
nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie. Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake
DoJ letters, calls to "find" nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong
and *illegal*, scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence, scooter ? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
On 1/25/2024 7:37 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3eesN.68801$GX69.22078@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oO9sN.53939$5Hnd.13090@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), BaxterEight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be disqualified.
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote inEight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure. >>>>>>>>>>>>
news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
email.me:
NoBody wrote:There
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
decisionwas a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
trialNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
chargesand held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
===============Who were these "tens of thousands"?or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even
though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stupidity limit reached.
At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those
eight.
No one said he was before now, scooter.
Excellent, so
Trump engaged in insurrection,
Excellent and since that is a crime
It's also an event, scooter.
You're funny, scooter, in addition to being a knuckle-dragging fuckwit.
You keep trying the same gags, over and over, after they've already failed.
events don't disqualify you
Participation in an insurrection event after swearing an oath to defend the
Constitution disqualifies you
Ok.. and such participation is a federal crime.
Not necessarily
The law says it is.
No, scooter, it doesn't. You're talking in circles again, scooter.
On 1/25/2024 7:32 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8eesN.68804$GX69.50271@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aO9sN.53927$5Hnd.36079@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
Says who? You?
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
You lied then.
No.
....and you're lying now.
No.
What a lie.
No, scooter. You are the liar (and drunken Virginia camper).
In article <uou1bq$2c89u$6@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uosjsa$25pob$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted
or even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the
5th, its wording prevails, just like the 21st
repealed the 18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding
in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3,
scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases.
14.3 is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
Yep, and you have no proof that there was.
Not a single individual was even indicted for such an offense much
less convicted.
Baxter's level of proof: It did because I said so. So there.
In article <HIxsN.255932$Wp_8.7294@fx17.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in
order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection
that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit,
pursuant to Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to
keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to
14.3. The Colorado court meticulously
reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump
engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been
charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more
serious charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy
carries a maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was
convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not
required for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not
all of them connected to the insurrection. These are the
crimes addressed in the four federal indictments for
election interference. For example, coordinating the
submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send
a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive
"fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending
the appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim.
He'll be convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments
against Trump are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We
[meaning only Trump] did nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie.
Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake DoJ letters, calls to "find"
nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong and *illegal*,
scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence, scooter
? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
Just like the failed impeachments and the Russia collusion hoax?
In article <GIxsN.255931$Wp_8.11084@fx17.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:But you have no proof.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>
happenedTrump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required forPeople have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>> chargein that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory >>>>>>>> insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're just
wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that would >>>> elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to read
them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say you are
wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a drunken
Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the moment). >>>
No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the >> indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
with *no* criminal trial.
Yet still no proof
In article <HIxsN.255932$Wp_8.7294@fx17.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for >>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the >>>>>>>>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example, >>>>>>>>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to
states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime
not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate
court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some
of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments against Trump
are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We [meaning only Trump] did
nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie. Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake
DoJ letters, calls to "find" nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong
and *illegal*, scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence, >> scooter ? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
Just like the
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GIxsN.255931$Wp_8.11084@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>
   -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
happenedThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ofTrump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Â >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>Â >>>>>>
01/06/2021in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
chargedwas an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>
charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries >> a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was > convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory >>>>>>>> insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're
just wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that >>>> would elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to
read them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say >>>> you are wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a
drunken Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the >>>> moment).
But you have no proof.
No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the >> indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
with *no* criminal trial.
All Rudy can say.
On 1/25/2024 10:56 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HIxsN.255932$Wp_8.7294@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened
in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot
in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>>>>>
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the
four federal indictments for election interference. For example, >>>>>>>>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime,
but not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a >>>>>>>>>> letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" >>>>>>>>>> also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the >>>>>>>> appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be >>>>>>>> convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments against Trump
are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We [meaning only Trump] did
nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie. Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake
DoJ letters, calls to "find" nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong
and *illegal*, scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence,
scooter ? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
Clearly they are,
No, scooter.
or they would result in convictions
They will, scooter. The trials haven't yet been held, scooter. The trials haven't been held due to Trump's delaying tactics, scooter. Trump is trying to
delay trial because he knows he's going to be convicted, scooter.
You're such a stupid drunken Virginia camper, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:LIxsN.255936$Wp_8.134993@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:31 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeesN.68805$GX69.65573@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bO9sN.53928$5Hnd.5817@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:33 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_kVrN.44867$Iswd.30831@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote inWho were these "tens of thousands"?
news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. ThereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conducted a trial
and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021
through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without charges
or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and which court stated they were barred from office without a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conviction
None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability >>>>>>>>>>>>> already knew they were disqualified, scooter.
No,
Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders >>>>>>>>>>> who had sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew >>>>>>>>>>> they were disqualified.
Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
What I know are facts.
And yet,
Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.
Another Rudyism:
Nope.
Rudy denies
Nope.
Rudy provides
the proof
Which you never have.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401c60d9b6d6e5659910b4@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <HIxsN.255932$Wp_8.7294@fx17.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/25/2024 7:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JdesN.68800$GX69.34926@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:58 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nO9sN.53938$5Hnd.28147@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in
order to be disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection
that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit,
pursuant to Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to
keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant to
14.3. The Colorado court meticulously
reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump
engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been
charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more
serious charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy
carries a maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was
convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not
required for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
You assert he committed a crime
No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not
all of them connected to the insurrection. These are the
crimes addressed in the four federal indictments for
election interference. For example, coordinating the
submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send
a letter to states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive
"fraud" also is a crime not connected to the insurrection.
Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending
the appellate court chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim.
He'll be convicted on some of the counts, too.
We've been hearing that for about 8 years now
You've been hearing it for less than six months
Is that the length of your memory?
That's the amount of time since Trump was indicted for numerous
election-related crimes, scooter.
And given the number of unsupported indictments
There are no unsupported indictments, scooter. All the indictments
against Trump are voluminously supported. Trump keeps shrieking "We
[meaning only Trump] did nothing wrong," but we know that's a lie.
Fake electors, inciting a riot, fake DoJ letters, calls to "find"
nonexistent votes ? all of those things are wrong and *illegal*,
scooter, and there is lots of evidence ? boxcars of evidence, scooter
? that Trump did all of them. You know this, scooter.
Just like the failed impeachments and the Russia collusion hoax?
If the Russia collusion was a hoax, why did tRump fire the people investigating?
On 1/25/2024 10:55 AM, scooter lied:
038100029123013004081076092012126085063074048044030088076020003023091081126066114119002123033063023055035076100026103098095122049087078093002006080104097100124028029062086105070122085106093090085022001031069013072001083101096090106125121103100064017&EXT="Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MIxsN.255937$Wp_8.201191@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:37 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4eesN.68802$GX69.58440@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:52 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qO9sN.53940$5Hnd.8341@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:37 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RkVrN.44862$Iswd.10864@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
thoseThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ofThere has been no criminal trail held to evaluate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
conducted >>>> aNo court of any kind has proved he's guilty of >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.charges. A civil court can not determine if someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
The District Court of the City and County of Denver >>>> >>>>
on >>>> Januarytrial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection >>>>
Nope.6, 2021 through incitement."
Was he indicted?
The hearing was civil.
Was he booked?
It was a civil case.
Did he attend?
Could have if he wished.
Face his accusers?
There were none.
And right there your whole argument fails. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
5th and 6th Amendments.
Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
criminal conviction.
Without proper due process
Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
criminal trial, scooter.
He never went to court for it.
Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed and
agreed with that part of the decision.
Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," >>>>>>>>>>>> scooter.
Then he's not disqualified.
He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
Where does it state that?
It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
If it doesn't say it
Then crime is not implicated in it, scooter.
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=
If there is no crime, there was no violation,
No, scooter. 14.3 is civil, scooter.
Because you say so?
No, scooter ? because that's what it self-evidently is.
Rudy
beat your ass again, scooter. Yep.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401c58b8afb202989910a5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uou1bq$2c89u$6@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uosjsa$25pob$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted
or even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the
5th, its wording prevails, just like the 21st
repealed the 18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding
in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3,
scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases.
14.3 is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
Yep, and you have no proof that there was.
Not a single individual was even indicted for such an offense much
less convicted.
Baxter's level of proof: It did because I said so. So there.
Nope. Courts said so.
Do note that a Proud Boy who was planning to take over Portland
government (insurrection) was just sentenced to 6 years in prison. The Oregonian called it "insurrection". And this was after his partipation in
the Capital insurrection.
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@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
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
| 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.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
|
| 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.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u
l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have
been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >news:uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
says...
On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
"Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
less convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys- >>>> >>>> sedition.html>
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con >>>> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
means b u l l s h i t.
Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?
No, because his disqualification isn't a criminal matter as it would be
with Trump.
So yes, you would have to convict Trump of a disqualifying crime if you >actually wanted to keep him from being able to run.
He hasn't been.. so he's not been disqualified.
Baxter lamely attempts to assert equity between two totally different >matters.
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as >>>>>>>>>>>> mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in >>>>>>>>>> DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado >>>>>>>>> law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>>>>>> pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event >>>>>>>>> of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>> was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>> prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition. >>>>Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher
penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition,
scooter.
That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether
or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only
mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event >>> meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
Irrelevant.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection. >>>>>
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
"proves"
that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and >>>>>>> convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with
the
statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
   -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>>>>> 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>> disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition. >>>>>Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter. >>>> That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
Irrelevant.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and >>>>>>>> convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the >>>>>> statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, >>>> scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell" wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere
accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened >>>>>>>>>>>> in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>>>>>>>> pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what
constitutes
insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event >>>>>>>>>>> of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. >>>>>>>>>>> Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged >>>>>>>>>> with
Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge >>>>>>>>> than
insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum >>>>>>> prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3
disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher >>>>> penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition,
scooter.
That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't
only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that
event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
"proves"
that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and >>>>>>>>> convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with >>>>>>> the
statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
accusation being sufficient.
   -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado law,
was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state, >>>>>>>>>>>> pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what constitutes >>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that the event of
01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>>> was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with >>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than >>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison
term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3 >>>>>> disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by definition. >>>>>>>Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a harsher >>>>>> penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by definition, scooter.
That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of whether or
not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection doesn't only >>>>>> mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and that event >>>>>> meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
Irrelevant.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection. >>>>>>>>
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and >>>>>>>>>> convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021,
scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
On 1/25/2024 10:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JIxsN.255934$Wp_8.191900@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:32 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eesN.68803$GX69.26821@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:29 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (prohibition).
-WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word >>>>>>>>>>>>> "convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is >>>>>>>>>>> not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed,
Actually
Another scooterism: empty wheezy padding. It adds nothing.
the law does require a conviction.
14.3 disqualification does not require conviction, scooter.
It's the very basis of our entire jurisprudence.
Only criminal jurisprudence, scooter. 14.3 isn't criminal in nature. >>>>>
Meanwhile
Another scooterism: empty wheezy padding. It adds nothing.
Rudy's
No, *your* wheezy padding, scooter. You start your first sentence every
time with empty wheezy padding, and often subsequent sentences. Shitty
writing like yours reflects shitty thinking...like yours.
Rudy
isn't your intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and
physical superior.
That's right, scooter.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.401c58b8afb202989910a5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uou1bq$2c89u$6@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uosjsa$25pob$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401b4238be0a7c8e99104b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uos3kv$200q2$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401addd929ced12399100e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
message news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted
or even indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
writes:
5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal
trial.
Technically, since the 14th was passed after the
5th, its wording prevails, just like the 21st
repealed the 18th (prohibition). -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that
exists. Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the
need to have such disqualifications due to a finding
in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3,
scooter.
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word
"convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases.
14.3 is not about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Doesn't need to be charged - 14.3 doesn't say anything about
"convicted".
He did no insurrection.
The old conservaturd litnty:
- there was no insurrection
Yep, and you have no proof that there was.
Not a single individual was even indicted for such an offense much
less convicted.
Baxter's level of proof: It did because I said so. So there.
Nope. Courts said so.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:JIxsN.255934$Wp_8.191900@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:32 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eesN.68803$GX69.26821@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:29 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7O9sN.53926$5Hnd.21588@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not >>>>>>>>>> about criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed,
Actually
Another scooterism: empty wheezy padding. It adds nothing.
the law does require a conviction.
14.3 disqualification does not require conviction, scooter.
It's the very basis of our entire jurisprudence.
Only criminal jurisprudence, scooter. 14.3 isn't criminal in nature.
Meanwhile
Another scooterism: empty wheezy padding. It adds nothing.
Rudy's
No, *your* wheezy padding, scooter. You start your first sentence every time >> with empty wheezy padding, and often subsequent sentences. Shitty writing like
yours reflects shitty thinking...like yours.
Rudy
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mereHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and
concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been
charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious
charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>
for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty,
scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection
doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and
that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not
what "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is
charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged >>>>>>>>> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:KIxsN.255935$Wp_8.234730@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 7:32 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eesN.68804$GX69.50271@fx46.iad...
On 1/24/2024 8:28 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aO9sN.53927$5Hnd.36079@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:Says who? You?
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>
"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted?
Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Says the amendment, scooter.
Cite the text that says what you assert.
It's what is *not* in the text,
You lied then.
No.
....and you're lying now.
No.
What a lie.
No, scooter. You are the liar (and drunken Virginia camper).
Rudy is
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required >>>>>>> for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>>>>>>>> charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>>>> charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>> harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty,
scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>> whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection
doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and
that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not >>>>>>> what "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is >>>>>>>>>>> charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged >>>>>>>>> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
On 1/25/2024 10:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GIxsN.255931$Wp_8.11084@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net: >>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient.Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
happenedThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ofTrump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
01/06/2021in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>
chargedwas an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>
with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>
charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries >> a
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was > convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're
just wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that >>>> would elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to
read them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say
you are wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a
drunken Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the >>>> moment).
But you have no proof.
No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the
indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
with *no* criminal trial.
All Rudy can say.
I say a lot more than that, scooter, and it shoots you down every time.
In article <MHQsN.385956$83n7.367970@fx18.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/25/2024 10:57 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GIxsN.255931$Wp_8.11084@fx17.iad...
On 1/25/2024 8:01 AM, scooter lied:
On 1/24/2024 12:15 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
On 1/24/2024 9:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mO9sN.53937$5Hnd.2547@fx03.iad...
On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
interpret
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>
accusation.as mere accusation being sufficient. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â -WBEÂ [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>
happenedThere was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ofTrump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â >>>>>>>
state's decision is subject to judicial review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ballotin DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â >>>>>>
01/06/2021in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of >>>>>>
chargedwas an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
not on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries >> awith Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>
charge
than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was > convicted.
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
14.3 disqualification, scooter.
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
False. They *might* be charged with it,
When they are, then 14.3 would apply
It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
insurrection, scooter.
Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
That is exactly what you are saying.
That's not what I'm saying, scooter.
He's guilty because you say so....
No, scooter.
otherwise you would agree he can run for President.
That's a total non sequitur, scooter.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not trying to have anything "both ways," scooter.
14.3 is a civil issue only, scooter. You are just wrong in insisting that a
criminal conviction is required in order to invoke disqualification. You're
just wrong. I've offered links to multiple papers by legal scholars that >>>>>> would elaborate on *why* you're wrong, but you're too stupid and stubborn to
read them. So, in the end, it comes down to: you are wrong, because I say
you are wrong. Sorry, but you're just wrong (and stupid and illiterate and a
drunken Virginia camper, but those are not what's important here at the >>>>>> moment).
But you have no proof.
No, I have the opinions of dozens of legal scholars, scooter. And I have the
indisputable fact that numerous southern traitors were disqualified under 14.3
with *no* criminal trial.
All Rudy can say.
I say a lot more than that, scooter, and it shoots you down every time.
You make claims and
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in >news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
"Baxter"Â wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in
news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Ă‚Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Ă‚Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
No one actually says that.
In article <wf0tN.248202$Ama9.194988@fx12.iad>, bondrock@att.net says...
On 1/26/2024 7:58 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Baxter"Â wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in
news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Ă‚Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Ă‚Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, >>>>>>>>> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied: >>>>>>>>>
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist" >>>>
No one actually says that.
All right-wingnuts figuratively say it. Trump says it, Andrea W, you Nazi whore.
No one says it.
On 1/26/2024 7:58 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Baxter" wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in
news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied: >>>>>>>
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
No one actually says that.
All right-wingnuts figuratively say it. Trump says it, Andrea W, you Nazi whore.
In article <uoktt9$jr9h$1@dont-email.me>, invalide@invalid.invalid
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says...
In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote: >>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot. >>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
What's your fav excuse?
1. bamboo ballots
2. magic thermostats
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
That shit came from you.
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uoktt9$jr9h$1@dont-email.me>, invalide@invalid.invalid
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says... >>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
What's your fav excuse?
1. bamboo ballots
2. magic thermostats
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
That shit came from you.
So you like all the trumpbillie excuses!
In article <up4r0v$3pqqo$2@dont-email.me>, invalide@invalid.invalid
says...
Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uoktt9$jr9h$1@dont-email.me>, invalide@invalid.invalid
Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uo8lgo$20bju$21@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net says... >>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big >>>>>>> exceptions.
None of which disqualify him.
The people have spoken and if he loses we know the fix was set.
What's your fav excuse?
1. bamboo ballots
2. magic thermostats
3. ballots from NoKo coming into a port in Maine
4. HUGO CHAVEZ
5. satellites controlled from Italy switch votes
That shit came from you.
So you like all the trumpbillie excuses!
I don't even know what that means.
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> wrote in news:J6IsN.52435$6ePe.48256@fx42.iad:
On 1/25/2024 7:51 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"OrigInfoJunkie"Â wrote in message
news:MnDsN.64604$IfLe.25787@fx36.iad...
On 1/25/2024 4:28 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
"Michael A Terrell"Â wrote in message
news:y9ErN.156074$yEgf.33744@fx09.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>,
banmilk@hotmail.com says...
On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required >>>>>>>> for 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation. There was aHe 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.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision is subject
to judicial review.
Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened in DC?
No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot in that state, pursuant
to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not
on trial.
Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been >>>>>>>>>>>>> charged with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
People have been tried and convicted for a more serious >>>>>>>>>>>> charge than insurrection.
Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted. >>>>>>>>
insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
Great.
Yes.
Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
definition.
Post the definition.
It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a >>>>>>>> harsher penalty
is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty,
scooter.
Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of >>>>>>>> whether or not
anyone was charged with that statutory crime. Insurrection
doesn't only mean a
statutory crime, scooter. It's a description of an event, and
that event meets
all the criteria for being an insurrection.
If so people would be charged with it.
Not necessarily.
It was an insurrection.
What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
insurrection.
Irrelevant.
Totally relevant
No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not >>>>>>>> what "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
So far nothing has proven it.
False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.
It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is >>>>>>>>>>>> charged and convicted
of statutory insurrection.
IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged >>>>>>>>>> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
Right,
Right, scooter.
the mythical insurrection
No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
01/06/2021, scooter.
No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.
There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.
You leftists
No.
Ah another leftist
No.
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a "leftist"
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
============
Trump?s plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024 reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation- immigration-stephen-miller/
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024 reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation- >> immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee,
we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals that are illegally in the country to await deportation.
I suppose every prison in the nation and even the world is a "concentration camp" according to you.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024 reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation- immigration-stephen-miller/
On 1/29/2024 8:39 AM, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
He's planning for them if he wins reelection, scooter.
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024 reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation- >> immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee,
Another scooterism: empty wheezy padding. "gee" adds nothing.
we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals that are illegally in the country to await deportation.
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
I suppose every prison in the nation and even the world is a "concentration camp" according to you.
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize millions of people and slam
them into concentration camps *without* due process, scooter.
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportat
ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country without
authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportat
ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he WANTS
hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country without
authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he WANTSNo, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border ENTIRELY LEGALLY.We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country without
authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
What part of "legally" do you not understand?
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone that
doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportat
ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he WANTS
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to project
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor
tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
After a point yes.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291bba7f6e42099129d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor
tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
After a point yes.
Oh, yeah, that't the point the NAZI's made - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to enter
the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to allow
hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he WANTS
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291bba7f6e42099129d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor
tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
After a point yes.
Oh, yeah, that't the point the NAZI's made - right?
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to project
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.
Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Baxter wrote:
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291bba7f6e42099129d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor >>>>> tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
After a point yes.
Oh, yeah, that't the point the NAZI's made - right?
the lamplighter trailer park concentration camp featuring skeeter
and friends -
https://postimg.cc/dh7FY7Nt
In article <17af2aa50db3fc07$182$2642209$e0ddea62@news.thecubenet.com>, precent@yahoo.net says...
Baxter wrote:
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in>
news:MPG.402291bba7f6e42099129d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a >>>>>>>>> "leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor >>>>>>> tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals >>>>>> that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow >>>>>> Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps". >>>>>>
After a point yes.
Oh, yeah, that't the point the NAZI's made - right?
the lamplighter trailer park concentration camp featuring skeeter
and friends -
https://postimg.cc/dh7FY7Nt
Fat Chad Bryant still hiding like a puss.
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to enter
the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to allow
hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the
Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject the
deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-push-on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-congress-
house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible border
deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as Trump
meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare bipartisan
deal on tough new border security, the fate of any agreement appeared in
doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing concern former President
Donald Trump could derail the whole thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to hold
off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the presidential
election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on arrival in the House
anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republicans-
casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you are
on the MSM koolaid.
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your point
of lying?
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...somehow
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House
GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the
Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject the
deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-push-
on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-congres
s- house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republicans-
casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022cb94280fe47c9912c3@usnews.blocknews.net:push-
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House
GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the
Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject the
deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-
congreson-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-
republicans-s- house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-
casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Apparently not yours.
tRump's opposition to the border deal is in all the news.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you aredrunk
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year- visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your point
of lying?
He also said:
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the US/Mezican border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign (and
use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022caf295a986039912c1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...somehow
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
=============
Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal
Republican and Democratic senators are taking to the airwaves, scrambling
to pass severe restrictions on migrants flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border. There's just one thing: Their plan is all but dead.
Why it matters: The Senate might pass the plan, which would be one of the harshest immigration bills of the century. President Biden is ready to
sign it. But House Republicans ? egged on by former President Trump ?
already are planning to shut it down.
Trump, whose front-runner status in the Republican presidential race
has solidified his leadership of the GOP, has loudly vowed to kill the bipartisan border deal.
"It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the way," Trump said Saturday in Nevada.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/29/trump-republicans-border-deal-senate- immigration
=======
What part of ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the way," Trump said" do you not understand?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022cb94280fe47c9912c3@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House
GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the
Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject the
deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-push-
on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-congres
s- house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republicans-
casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Apparently not yours.
tRump's opposition to the border deal is in all the news.
In article <upbpa7$15ba3$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comHe also said:
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps
*without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your point
of lying?
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the US/Mezican
border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign (and
use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Why is Biden just now doing this? The border wasn't like it is now when
Trump was in. Biden opened it. It must be an election year. Biden needs Taylor Swift to endorse him. What a joke.
In article <upbpa7$15ba3$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>,He also said:
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your
point of lying?
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the
US/Mezican
border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign (and
use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Why is Biden just now doing this?
The border wasn't like it is now when Trump was in.
Biden opened it.
It must be an election year. Biden
needs Taylor Swift to endorse him. What a joke.
In article <upbpls$15ba3$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cb94280fe47c9912c3@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and
House GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in
the Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern
border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject
the deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-pu
sh- on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-cong
res s-
house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole
thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republica
ns- casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Apparently not yours.
tRump's opposition to the border deal is in all the news.
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
In article <upbpef$15ba3$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not
understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-
visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
NOR + Bullshit
Are you really this owned?
... Biden
needs Taylor Swift to endorse him. What a joke.
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b21ce6f82849912e7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpjm$15ba3$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022caf295a986039912c1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>,somehow
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of
criminals that are illegally in the country to await
deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "ConcentrationOh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
=============
Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal
Republican and Democratic senators are taking to the airwaves,
scrambling to pass severe restrictions on migrants flooding across
the U.S.-Mexico border. There's just one thing: Their plan is all but
dead.
Why it matters: The Senate might pass the plan, which would be one of
the harshest immigration bills of the century. President Biden is
ready to sign it. But House Republicans ? egged on by former
President Trump ? already are planning to shut it down.
Trump, whose front-runner status in the Republican presidential
race
has solidified his leadership of the GOP, has loudly vowed to kill
the bipartisan border deal.
"It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the way," Trump
said
Saturday in Nevada.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/29/trump-republicans-border-deal-senate-
immigration
=======
What part of ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the
way," Trump said" do you not understand?
You have things all twisted around.
How do you twist ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the
way," Trump said"?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232ae85b5eace79912e6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpef$15ba3$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not
understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-
visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
NOR + Bullshit
Are you really this owned?
Are you really that ignorant? Why would NPR and hundreds of other sites
make up this story?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232abff36723ad9912e5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpa7$15ba3$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>,He also said:
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your
point of lying?
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the
US/Mezican
border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign (and
use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Why is Biden just now doing this?
Biden has asked multiple times for money for border enforcement - Repugs turned him
down every time.
The border wasn't like it is now when Trump was in.
Yeah, it was - the Repugs gave him legislation (Title 42) to help deal with it.
Biden opened it.
Nope - Title 42 expired.
It must be an election year. Biden
needs Taylor Swift to endorse him. What a joke.
tRump needs the border issue for his campaign - then he can safely ignore the border
if he gets elected.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b6279483ae29912e8@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpls$15ba3$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cb94280fe47c9912c3@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and
House GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in
the Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern
border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject
the deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-pu
sh- on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-cong
res s-
house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole
thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republica
ns- casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Apparently not yours.
tRump's opposition to the border deal is in all the news.
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
If that were true, he would not be telling Mike Johnson to kill the Bipartisan Senate bill.
tRump doesn't want the border shut down at all - he wants it to fester as
a campaign issue.
Your hero/god is evil.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b6279483ae29912e8@usnews.blocknews.net:
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
http://tinyurl.com/yn7reta3
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to project
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to enter
the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to allow
hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House GOP
(TND) - President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the
Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he WANTS
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without*
due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402291bba7f6e42099129d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8l5k$hn00$2@dont-email.me:
Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up8h7g$gu1r$2@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:up8ce2$g6lh$6@dont-email.me:
What part of "concentration camps" do you not understand?
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up0jvf$2tuh1$2@dont-email.me...
tRumpanzees say anyone who doesn't suck tRump's asshole is a
"leftist"
Baxter meanwhile shows off his spittle covered rage at anyone
that doesn't see Trump as Satan incarnate.
And he's the one complaining that others are too radical....
That there were none under Trump?
============
Trump's plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024
reality
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-depor
tat ion- immigration-stephen-miller/
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
After a point yes.
Oh, yeah, that't the point the NAZI's made - right?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and somehow
Baxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to project
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.
Try that again maybe this time in a comprehensible manner.
Now if you meant to assert that Trump opposed fixing the border.. seems to me, he worked very hard to fix the border and to restrict the number of people crossing it illegally.
Biden on the other hand... has thrown the border wide open, and no one seems to be happy with it. Not even the liberal cities that claimed to be sanctuaries and would see to the needs of such illegal immigrants.. until they showed up. Now they are complaining they can't deal with it.. despite being only a few few of the number that have entered. I particularly love
the whining of Chicago.
So be clear what you claim Trump didn't do, and what you think Biden is
doing that is so much better for America.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed - he
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there after
conviction following due process of law. Trump intends to seize
millions of people and slam them into concentration camps *without* >>>>> due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to enter
the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to allow
hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
What 'fix' is that? Letting people enter at will despite the law?
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and House GOP
(TND) - President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in the Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern border.
You mean the crush of migrants that BIDEN is responsible for?
Really, you expect Trump to fix the problem BIDEN created?
yea, I think if you check, the problem is BIDEN's 'fix' is by effectively eliminating our border.. and people aren't happy with that.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Excellent, then the Razor wire didn't matter as that's not a port of entry.
However, I suspect if you actually checked, you would discover that you are wrong. What they probably have is a stay of deportation pending a hearing on the matter. I wonder how many will ignore that and refuse to appear.
In article <upcc14$1bt1r$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40232abff36723ad9912e5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpa7$15ba3$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>,He also said:
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump
intends to seize millions of people and slam them into
concentration camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
- he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the
country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your
point of lying?
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the
US/Mezican
border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign
(and use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Why is Biden just now doing this?
Biden has asked multiple times for money for border enforcement -
Repugs turned him down every time.
We didn't need it when Trump was in office. Now all of a sudden they
need money? Just what will they use this money for? What kind of
security are you talking about? Just cross legally.
The border wasn't like it is now when Trump was in.
Yeah, it was - the Repugs gave him legislation (Title 42) to help
deal with it.
There were not 1000s a day crossing.
Biden opened it.
Nope - Title 42 expired.
Excuses.
It must be an election year. BidentRump needs the border issue for his campaign - then he can safely
needs Taylor Swift to endorse him. What a joke.
ignore the border if he gets elected.
I bet he won't.
In article <upcc3m$1bt1r$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40232ae85b5eace79912e6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpef$15ba3$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the
country without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not
understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you
are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-ye
ar- visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
NOR + Bullshit
Are you really this owned?
Are you really that ignorant? Why would NPR and hundreds of other
sites make up this story?
Yet you claim any news YOU disagree with is fake.
In article <upcc5e$1bt1r$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
How do you twist ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all
the way," Trump said"?
You are hopeless. They have you owned.
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
You can't even get your facts straight.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022caf295a986039912c1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comsomehow
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
=============
Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal
Republican and Democratic senators are taking to the airwaves, scrambling
to pass severe restrictions on migrants flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border. There's just one thing: Their plan is all but dead.
Why it matters: The Senate might pass the plan, which would be one of the harshest immigration bills of the century.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022caf295a986039912c1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comsomehow
says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of criminals
that are illegally in the country to await deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "Concentration Camps".Oh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
=============
Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal
Republican and Democratic senators are taking to the airwaves, scrambling
to pass severe restrictions on migrants flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border. There's just one thing: Their plan is all but dead.
Why it matters: The Senate might pass the plan, which would be one of the harshest immigration bills of the century.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b6279483ae29912e8@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpls$15ba3$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cb94280fe47c9912c3@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5p1$11q8l$9@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vp$11ab3$3@dont-email.me:
You're a liar - that's no typo tRump is opposing the border fix
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, Biden does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
I give up.. why would Biden want hordes of illegal immigrants to
enter the country?
Oh, and I corrected your typo since Biden is the one working to
allow hordes of illegal immigrants to enter the country.
============
Senate's bipartisan border bill faces opposition from Trump and
House GOP
(TND) ? President Joe Biden is backing a bipartisan compromise in
the Senate to address the crush of migrants at our southern
border.
But former President Donald Trump is lobbying lawmakers to reject
the deal.
https://nbcmontana.com/news/beyond-the-podium/senate-negotiators-pu
sh- on-
with-immigration-deal-in-face-of-opposition-misinformation-asylum-
seekers-migrants-southern-border-politics-election-biden-trump-cong
res s-
house-speaker-mike-johnson-sen-james-lankford-sen-chris-murphy
============
Trump's grip on congressional Republicans casts doubt on possible
border deal
Senate negotiators are continuing to work on a bipartisan deal as
Trump meddles.
With Republican and Democratic senators closing in on a rare
bipartisan deal on tough new border security, the fate of any
agreement appeared in doubt Friday with key Republicans expressing
concern former President Donald Trump could derail the whole
thing.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday piled on Trump's pressure to
hold off on anything less that a "perfect" deal until after the
presidential election, saying the Senate bill could be "dead on
arrival in the House anyway."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-grip-congressional-republica
ns- casts-doubt-border-deal/story?id=106708196
What a load of shit. What planet do you live on?
Apparently not yours.
tRump's opposition to the border deal is in all the news.
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
If that were true, he would not be telling Mike Johnson to kill the Bipartisan Senate bill.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b21ce6f82849912e7@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpjm$15ba3$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comHow do you twist ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022caf295a986039912c1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5g4$11q8l$8@dont-email.me>,somehow
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:upb1vo$11ab3$2@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:up9p96$r40m$1@dont-email.me...
Gee, we have large places to put some of the MILLIONS of
criminals that are illegally in the country to await
deportation. and
projectBaxter wants to claim they are some sort of "ConcentrationOh. they're just "vermin" and don't count - right?
Camps".
Baxter attempts to avoid addressing the facts by attempting to
his own bigotry and hatred onto others.Why does tRump oppose fixed the border?
Show us proof of this. I bet you won't.
=============
Trump, House Republicans plot to kill border deal
Republican and Democratic senators are taking to the airwaves,
scrambling to pass severe restrictions on migrants flooding across
the U.S.-Mexico border. There's just one thing: Their plan is all but
dead.
Why it matters: The Senate might pass the plan, which would be one of
the harshest immigration bills of the century. President Biden is
ready to sign it. But House Republicans ? egged on by former
President Trump ? already are planning to shut it down.
Trump, whose front-runner status in the Republican presidential
race
has solidified his leadership of the GOP, has loudly vowed to kill
the bipartisan border deal.
"It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the way," Trump
said
Saturday in Nevada.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/29/trump-republicans-border-deal-senate-
immigration
=======
What part of ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all the
way," Trump said" do you not understand?
You have things all twisted around.
way," Trump said"?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232b6279483ae29912e8@usnews.blocknews.net:
He wants it shut down and done legally. He even said so. I don't know
where you get your news but it's for sure not on my planet.
http://tinyurl.com/yn7reta3
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232abff36723ad9912e5@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpa7$15ba3$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022ca92bb5364479912bf@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5d3$11q8l$6@dont-email.me>,He also said:
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402291d54ff0887e99129e@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9pjc$r40m$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,Meantime, tRump does NOT want the border probem to be fixed -
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
No, but in the U.S. at least, people in prison are there
after conviction following due process of law. Trump intends
to seize millions of people and slam them into concentration
camps *without* due process, scooter.
No he doesn't. He plans on deporting them.
he WANTS hordes of "illegal" immigrants to enter the country.
Why is that?
Who said that? You?
read the news.
Trump said he would deport and close the border. So what's your
point of lying?
- he would repeal and replace Obamacare - did that happen?
- he would build a magnificent wall the entire length of the
US/Mezican
border - did that happen?
- and many, many more lies
A bipartisan Senate has a tough border bill that Biden will sign (and
use), tRump demands the House to kill it.
Why is Biden just now doing this?
Biden has asked multiple times for money for border enforcement - Repugs turned him
down every time.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the border
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40232ae85b5eace79912e6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpef$15ba3$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the country
without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not
understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-
visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
NOR + Bullshit
Are you really this owned?
Are you really that ignorant? Why would NPR and hundreds of other sites
make up this story?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40240865ad938b8f991302@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcc3m$1bt1r$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40232ae85b5eace79912e6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upbpef$15ba3$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4022cad2f5f533489912c0 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upb5e3$11q8l$7@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40229203159f55a299129f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <up9qf0$r40m$5@dont-email.me>, bax02
drunksays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4021965338d4dd5899124d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <TTQtN.131456$q3F7.128823@fx45.iad>,The MAJORITY of what you call "illegal aliens" crossed the
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
We don't, scooter. Also, most people who are in the
country without authorization aren't criminals, scooter.
They became one as soon as they crossed.
border ENTIRELY LEGALLY. What part of "legally" do you not
understand?
Did they go thru a port of entry? No? Then they are illegal.
Yes, they did. And they had visas
Who told you that? The videos show no ports of entry. Damn you
are
on the MSM koolaid.
GAWD you're stupid!!
==========
For 7th Consecutive Year, Visa Overstays Exceeded Illegal Border
Crossings
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-ye
ar- visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
NOR + Bullshit
Are you really this owned?
Are you really that ignorant? Why would NPR and hundreds of other
sites make up this story?
Yet you claim any news YOU disagree with is fake.
No I don't. The news I say is fake, others such at Media Bias also rate
as fake.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4024088f1c900fc3991303@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcc5e$1bt1r$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
How do you twist ""It's not going to happen, and I'll fight it all
the way," Trump said"?
You are hopeless. They have you owned.
You're the one who's owned - a tRump cult member.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
You can't even get your facts straight.
What you have are not facts.
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until Border
is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on whatever
they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross illegally.
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
Let's look at the FACTS:
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border crossing"
Who does it apply to
What is the penalty?
in a thumbnail, what is the process involved?
Then tell us how Biden is supposed to use this law to close the border.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
Cato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than
Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its
last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after
a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people per month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for understanding
how each administration has carried out border enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what it
calls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of those
people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December 31, 2021,
which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by Biden, and 52
percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3 months,
and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while releasing only 49
percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of those
arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed to
increase the removal share while also increasing the total removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be- released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like you.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until Border
is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on whatever
they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and increase
it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You won't do it
because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and the whole border issue is a fraud.
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Who does it apply to
People doing it.
What is the penalty?
in a thumbnail, what is the process involved?
You go to a legal port of entry and ask for asylum. If approved you
get in. If you don't do it that way then what are you trying to hide?
The first thing they do is break the law when they jump the fence.
Then tell us how Biden is supposed to use this law to close the
border.
He can just close it. It's our border you nitwit.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or don't do
it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just walked into
your yard and house?
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until
Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and the
whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now. Tell
the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence jumpers
being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country that. How
about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people from Syria and China
are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask questions?
You are brainwashed.
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Cato has the facts:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than
Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people
per month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what it
calls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while releasing
only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of
those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed
to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-
released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like
you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump for
Joes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was in
office?
Damn you are sold out.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until
Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to say
the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you really
thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no problem
agreeing to the bet.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and the
whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now. Tell
the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence jumpers
being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country that. How
about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people from Syria and China
are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his working with
other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can within
the law.
You are brainwashed.
Says the guy who wants to complain about the border but want's nothing actually done - who supports the Repugs blocking the bipartisan border
bill that Biden says he will immediatly sign and use.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal property
- not personal/State/etc.
Who does it apply to
People doing it.
To be more specific - every human whether Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Purple, Green, Citizen or non-citizen.
Note that last: citizen or non-citizen
What is the penalty?
in a thumbnail, what is the process involved?
You go to a legal port of entry and ask for asylum. If approved you
get in. If you don't do it that way then what are you trying to hide?
The first thing they do is break the law when they jump the fence.
Nope. Asylum laws have nothing to do with crossing the border.
Then tell us how Biden is supposed to use this law to close the
border.
He can just close it. It's our border you nitwit.
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or don't do
it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just walked into
your yard and house?
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws involved.
You still can't name the specific law that deals with "illegal border crossing".
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Cato has the facts:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than
Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people
per month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what it
calls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while releasing
only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of
those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed
to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-
released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like
you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump for
Joes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was in office?
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than
Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
What that really tells you is that conditions in the originating
countries are getting worse - people are trying to escape.
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and
the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now.
Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence
jumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country
that. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came
back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people
from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask
questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his working
with other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can
within the law.
Bullshit. The law says you can't just cross the border.
His bullshit
plan he has now is just that. Bullshit. We will still allow a
particular amount to cross illegally and the we might do something?
Trump will close and deport.
Says the guy who wants to complain about the border but want's
You are brainwashed.
nothing actually done - who supports the Repugs blocking the
bipartisan border bill that Biden says he will immediatly sign and
use.
The bill still allows people to cross illegally. So it's useless.
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is
tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break the
law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
...
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
He can because of security. You really are this stupid aren't you?
When you go to walmart do you enter thru the front door or do you
climb thru the vents? There are places for legitament people to cross.
No one said they couldn't. Why do it any other way?
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or don't
do it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just walked
into your yard and house?
It does and you are side stepping the issue.
In article <upe80v$1lfqe$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
you?says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
ThanCato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump
peopleBiden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many
itper month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what
releasingcalls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while
ofonly 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority
managedthose arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden
be-to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-
forreleased-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like
you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump
inJoes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was
office?
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than
Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
The reason there are so many is because of Biden.
What that really tells you is that conditions in the originating
countries are getting worse - people are trying to escape.
Bullshit. Why are people from China crossing the Mexican border?
a better paying job is not reason to cross illegally. If they are allrisking
such good people then why don't they do it legally? Why are they
children's lives? Damn you just don't get it.
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No matter
who you are.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd have
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and
the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now.
Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence
jumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country
that. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came
back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people
from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask
questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his working
with other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can
within the law.
Bullshit. The law says you can't just cross the border.
Cite that law. It doesn't say what you think it says
His bullshit
plan he has now is just that. Bullshit. We will still allow a
particular amount to cross illegally and the we might do something?
Trump will close and deport.
By what law? Or do you expect tRump to ignore all laws?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break the
law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Ah! Finally a reference - but you didn't actually read it. It says: "Improper Entry" - nothing about tresspassing.
Now go read it and tell us what the penalty for " Improper entry" is, and
how it is processed.
...
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
He can because of security. You really are this stupid aren't you?
When you go to walmart do you enter thru the front door or do you
climb thru the vents? There are places for legitament people to cross.
No one said they couldn't. Why do it any other way?
Cite the law.
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or don't
do it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just walked
into your yard and house?
It does and you are side stepping the issue.
Improper entry is not tresspassing. Tresspassing is usually a
local/State law.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No matter
who you are.
Ok, so you're a farmer, with a farm on the border a hundred miles from the nearest border crossing. You wake one morning and find some of your cattle have got though the fence and are 50 yards on other side of border. So according to you, that farmer can't just hop across the border and round
them up - he has to use big truck, drive to the border crossing, then back, hope the cattle are still there, load them up, drive back to border
crossing, then back to farm. Might be cheaper to just wave those cattle goodby and take the monetary loss.
In article <upebmj$1m7r2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
crosssays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to
aboutillegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything
trollingimmigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just
tolike Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
What does that have to do with you being broke?
have
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Why did you accuse me of saying that but now run from proving it?
You
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed.
fencewon't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and
the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now.
Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the
countryjumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the
askthat. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came
back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people
from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican border you don't
canquestions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his working
with other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he
within the law.
Bullshit. The law says you can't just cross the border.
Cite that law. It doesn't say what you think it says
I did. If it was totally legal then why do we have border patrol?
His bullshit
plan he has now is just that. Bullshit. We will still allow a
particular amount to cross illegally and the we might do something?
Trump will close and deport.
By what law? Or do you expect tRump to ignore all laws?
Any president can shut down illegal crossings. By shutting it down I
mean places where there is not a legal entry point. He has the right to deport also. Biden can do the same but Biden is a jerk.
Any president can shut it down for security reasons.
In article <upec78$1m7r2$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is
tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break
the law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Ah! Finally a reference - but you didn't actually read it. It says:
"Improper Entry" - nothing about tresspassing.
So you play on words? What the hell do you think improper entry means?
Crossing anywhere besides a legal entry point is a crime. You don't
seem to get that.
Now go read it and tell us what the penalty for " Improper entry" is,
and how it is processed.
Why, all I did was show it is a crime. Damn you are a daft one.
...
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
He can because of security. You really are this stupid aren't you?
When you go to walmart do you enter thru the front door or do you
climb thru the vents? There are places for legitament people to
cross. No one said they couldn't. Why do it any other way?
Cite the law.
He's the president. Are you saying he can't support shutting down the
border except for legal entry points? Biden signed off many things
Trump passed on day one. No "law" required. He also allowed people to
cross anywhere. That is going against our own laws. Do you support
just anyone coming here by any means? Remember 9/11?
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or
don't do it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just
walked into your yard and house?
It does and you are side stepping the issue.
Improper entry is not tresspassing. Tresspassing is usually a
local/State law.
Texas is a state. Crossing the border anywhere other than a legal
entry point is a crime. Can't you get that thru your head? Biden is
allowing them to break the law.
In article <upecoa$1m7r2$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No
matter who you are.
Ok, so you're a farmer, with a farm on the border a hundred miles
from the nearest border crossing. You wake one morning and find some
of your cattle have got though the fence and are 50 yards on other
side of border. So according to you, that farmer can't just hop
across the border and round them up - he has to use big truck, drive
to the border crossing, then back, hope the cattle are still there,
load them up, drive back to border crossing, then back to farm.
Might be cheaper to just wave those cattle goodby and take the
monetary loss.
Thats why there should be a fence or a wall. He's a shitty rancher if
he doesn't do that.
BTW idiot. Farmers grow shit and RANCHERS raise cattle. How many
carrots do you think will wander away?
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere than
a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the law. You
don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402462a8b708b521991362 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upebmj$1m7r2$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
crosssays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to
aboutillegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything
trollingimmigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just
tolike Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
What does that have to do with you being broke?
The challenge is for you - has nothing to do with me.
have
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Why did you accuse me of saying that but now run from proving it?
You're the one claiming tRump will close the border - put your money
where your mouth is.
You
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed.
fencewon't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and
the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now.
Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the
countryjumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the
askthat. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came
back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people
from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican border you don't
canquestions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his working
with other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he
within the law.
Bullshit. The law says you can't just cross the border.
Cite that law. It doesn't say what you think it says
I did. If it was totally legal then why do we have border patrol?
And what's the penalty for "Improper Entry"?
His bullshit
plan he has now is just that. Bullshit. We will still allow a
particular amount to cross illegally and the we might do something?
Trump will close and deport.
By what law? Or do you expect tRump to ignore all laws?
Any president can shut down illegal crossings. By shutting it down I
mean places where there is not a legal entry point. He has the right to deport also. Biden can do the same but Biden is a jerk.
He has to do it legally, and Repugs won't give him the funds. Go ahead, decribe the process to shut down illegal crossings. Describe the process
for deporting someone.
Any president can shut it down for security reasons.
There's no National Security involved. No tanks, no armies, etc
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere than
a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the law. You
don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246ea3845c707299136a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upecoa$1m7r2$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No
matter who you are.
Ok, so you're a farmer, with a farm on the border a hundred miles
from the nearest border crossing. You wake one morning and find some
of your cattle have got though the fence and are 50 yards on other
side of border. So according to you, that farmer can't just hop
across the border and round them up - he has to use big truck, drive
to the border crossing, then back, hope the cattle are still there,
load them up, drive back to border crossing, then back to farm.
Might be cheaper to just wave those cattle goodby and take the
monetary loss.
Thats why there should be a fence or a wall. He's a shitty rancher if
he doesn't do that.
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down. Perhaps
you think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border -- I got
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
BTW idiot. Farmers grow shit and RANCHERS raise cattle. How many
carrots do you think will wander away?
The farm I grew up on had cows, pigs, chickens, bees, an orchard, some
wheat, veggies, etc.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402464d72071d2f5991365@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec78$1m7r2$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is
tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break
the law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Ah! Finally a reference - but you didn't actually read it. It says:
"Improper Entry" - nothing about tresspassing.
So you play on words? What the hell do you think improper entry means?
Not a play on words, different legal definitions, differnt penalties, different jurisdictions, etc
Crossing anywhere besides a legal entry point is a crime. You don't
seem to get that.
Describe the penalty for Improper Entry. and how it is processed.
Now go read it and tell us what the penalty for " Improper entry" is,
and how it is processed.
Why, all I did was show it is a crime. Damn you are a daft one.
'smallter? afraid?
...
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
He can because of security. You really are this stupid aren't you?
When you go to walmart do you enter thru the front door or do you
climb thru the vents? There are places for legitament people to
cross. No one said they couldn't. Why do it any other way?
Cite the law.
He's the president. Are you saying he can't support shutting down the border except for legal entry points? Biden signed off many things
Trump passed on day one. No "law" required. He also allowed people to
cross anywhere. That is going against our own laws. Do you support
just anyone coming here by any means? Remember 9/11?
Cite the law that allows him to "shut down the border". Describe the process.
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or
don't do it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just
walked into your yard and house?
It does and you are side stepping the issue.
Improper entry is not tresspassing. Tresspassing is usually a
local/State law.
Texas is a state. Crossing the border anywhere other than a legal
entry point is a crime. Can't you get that thru your head? Biden is allowing them to break the law.
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
All you've got is a bunch of bumper-sticker slogans and nothing to back
those slogans up.
In article <upegtv$1n34p$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366
@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere than
a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the law. You
don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...Perhaps
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
gotyou think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border -- I
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
You are trying to run from the
fact that it's crime to cross anywhere other than a legal entry point.
If you are so for this invasion so convince you "sanctuary" cities that
are now crying because they are showing up there that it's ok.
The farm I grew up on had cows, pigs, chickens, bees, an orchard, some
BTW idiot. Farmers grow shit and RANCHERS raise cattle. How many
carrots do you think will wander away?
wheat, veggies, etc.
So?
In article <upegtv$1n34p$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals
with "illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere
than a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the
law. You don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
That is all this was about. You keep moving the goal posts. You saw
the site and what the penalties are. It's very simple. You cross
anywhere than a legal entry you are breaking the law. You just posted
what that law is. That alone is reason to turn them back on the spot.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247ea73ea190e599137b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegtv$1n34p$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals
with "illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere
than a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the
law. You don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
That is all this was about. You keep moving the goal posts. You saw
the site and what the penalties are. It's very simple. You cross
anywhere than a legal entry you are breaking the law. You just posted
what that law is. That alone is reason to turn them back on the spot.
You're too much a coward to say the penalty. Knowing the penalty gives
us an idea of how "grievious" a crime it is. It's $50 - Some traffic violations are worse than that. Virtually EVERY person in the US has
broken some law or anthoer and you're in high dungeon over such a
piddling infraction!!
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247a6753f42ed7991379@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegf1$1n34p$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402462a8b708b521991362 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upebmj$1m7r2$1@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
crosssays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets
elected, pick a charity, give an excalating donation
every 6 months (+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money
on whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone
to
aboutillegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything
trollingimmigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just
tolike Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't
have
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If
you really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd
have had no problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
What does that have to do with you being broke?
The challenge is for you - has nothing to do with me.
It will be if you lost.
have
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Why did you accuse me of saying that but now run from proving it?
You're the one claiming tRump will close the border - put your money
where your mouth is.
All he has to do is swipe the pen. Joe opened it wide up with the
swipe of a pen and he can close it the same way. You know by closing
the border I mean places where you are not supposed to cross. Entry
points only. Why do you have an issue with people following the law?
Biden IS following the law. And Biden has deported more "illegal" aliens
that tRump ever did - both in percentage and hard numbers.
You
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100
and increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is
closed.
fencewon't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar,
and the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is
now. Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all
the
countryjumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the
askthat. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still
came back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally.
When people from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican
border you don't
canquestions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration, and he his
working with other governments to stem the tide, and doing
everything he
within the law.
Bullshit. The law says you can't just cross the border.
Cite that law. It doesn't say what you think it says
I did. If it was totally legal then why do we have border patrol?
And what's the penalty for "Improper Entry"?
It was on the site you dipshit. The point is it's illegal. That is all
that matters. You support crime and most likely terrorism.
So you're a coward to say it?
The penalty for Improper Entry is a $50 fine. To hear you tRumpturds
fromage about it one would think the border a war zone with rockets,
cannons, tanks, aircraft, bombs, machine guns, etc.
But back to that $50 fine - do tell us the process involved.
His bullshit
plan he has now is just that. Bullshit. We will still allow a
particular amount to cross illegally and the we might do
something? Trump will close and deport.
By what law? Or do you expect tRump to ignore all laws?
Any president can shut down illegal crossings. By shutting it down
I mean places where there is not a legal entry point. He has the
right to deport also. Biden can do the same but Biden is a jerk.
He has to do it legally, and Repugs won't give him the funds. Go
ahead, decribe the process to shut down illegal crossings. Describe
the process for deporting someone.
Turn them away. Pretty simple. Joe allowed it with a signature. He can
undo it the same way. He has that right.
The law doesn't allow him to do that. Title 42 did allow some of that -
but it expired. And everything else Biden has tried to do is being
challenged in court. First you tRumpTurds demand he do something, then
you tie anything he tries to do up in court.
There's no National Security involved. No tanks, no armies, etc
Any president can shut it down for security reasons.
Damn you really are this stupid. You don't think open borders is not national security? Do you even know what that means? Why is there
razor wire around the white house and you don't cry about that?
National security maybe? Idiot.
A man with wife and couple kids walking across an imaginary line on a map
is not NATIONAL SECURITY issue - they are not an INVADING ARMY, that's
NOT a WAR ZONE.
And if it's really the issue you claim, why are Repugs.tRump refusing to
fix it before next year - if even then?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247f3af850c8e899137c@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
PerhapsI specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
gotyou think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border -- I
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
Liar, they didn't take down ANY of the fence, in fact they repaired
sections that fell down.
You are trying to run from the
fact that it's crime to cross anywhere other than a legal entry point.
If you are so for this invasion so convince you "sanctuary" cities that
are now crying because they are showing up there that it's ok.
The farm I grew up on had cows, pigs, chickens, bees, an orchard, some
BTW idiot. Farmers grow shit and RANCHERS raise cattle. How many
carrots do you think will wander away?
wheat, veggies, etc.
So?
So your argument is stupid and ignorant.
In article <upgtfj$275ha$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Biden IS following the law. And Biden has deported more "illegal"
aliens that tRump ever did - both in percentage and hard numbers.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Now I know you're only trolling.
So you're a coward to say it?
The penalty is not the issue. The fact that it is a crime is.
But back to that $50 fine - do tell us the process involved.
Who cares? You are trying to evade.
The border is wide open,
In article <upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
All he has to do is say follow the law, entry points only.
You are focusing on nothing to stop the flow. You play on words. You
support open borders and you don't care about your country. Got it.
In article <upgtqm$275ha$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247f3af850c8e899137c@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>,Perhaps
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
gotyou think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border --
I
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
Liar, they didn't take down ANY of the fence, in fact they repaired
sections that fell down.
Yes they did.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e9195b93ea089913ec@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgtfj$275ha$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Biden IS following the law. And Biden has deported more "illegal"
aliens that tRump ever did - both in percentage and hard numbers.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Now I know you're only trolling.
I posted referenses to those facts. I guess you can't read
So you're a coward to say it?
The penalty is not the issue. The fact that it is a crime is.
Yeah it is the issue - Jaywaking is a harsher penalty. Virtially
EVERYONE has broken jaywalking laws at some point - so by your "logic" everyone is depraved criminals.
But back to that $50 fine - do tell us the process involved.
Who cares? You are trying to evade.
They have to go before a judge - and Repugs refuse to fund more judges.
The border is wide open,
Yeah, you just keep telling those migrants that.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e986ae927f919913ed@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
All he has to do is say follow the law, entry points only.
The majority of "illegal" aliens had a visa and entered at legal entry points.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e9d8d49322059913ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
You are focusing on nothing to stop the flow. You play on words. You support open borders and you don't care about your country. Got it.
You're the one telling everyone that the "borders are wide open". How are they supposed to know that's a lie?
In article <uphmau$2arpf$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4025ea1f12efade9913ef@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgtqm$275ha$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
yousays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247f3af850c8e899137c@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>,Perhaps
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
you think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah,
--probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border
down.gotI
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
Liar, they didn't take down ANY of the fence, in fact they repaired
sections that fell down.
Yes they did.
Go ahead, post a referenc.
You lost an e.
In article <uphm6r$2arpf$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4025e986ae927f919913ed@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
All he has to do is say follow the law, entry points only.
The majority of "illegal" aliens had a visa and entered at legal entry
points.
So you haven't seen the videos of them crossing the river and flooding
thru holes in the wall? CNN wont show that?
Yes they did.
Go ahead, post a referenc.
You lost an e.
IOW, you got nothing.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border crossing"
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is
tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break the
law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Ah! Finally a reference - but you didn't actually read it. It says: "Improper Entry" - nothing about tresspassing.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal property
- not personal/State/etc.
Who does it apply to
People doing it.
To be more specific - every human whether Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Purple, Green, Citizen or non-citizen.
Note that last: citizen or non-citizen
What is the penalty?
in a thumbnail, what is the process involved?
You go to a legal port of entry and ask for asylum. If approved you
get in. If you don't do it that way then what are you trying to hide?
The first thing they do is break the law when they jump the fence.
Nope. Asylum laws have nothing to do with crossing the border.
Then tell us how Biden is supposed to use this law to close the
border.
He can just close it. It's our border you nitwit.
Cite the law that allows him to do that.
Not the same law. Tresspassing has nothing to do with immigration.
I'm betting you haven't any idea whatever.
Plenty. It's you that no one here agrees with. Do it legal or don't do
it. Would like it if someone jumped your fence and just walked into
your yard and house?
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws involved.
You still can't name the specific law that deals with "illegal border crossing".
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402464d72071d2f5991365@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec78$1m7r2$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244a1eefba8665991331@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updtn2$1jpfj$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Let's look at the FACTS:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
you?
What is the name of the law that applies to "illegal border
crossing"
Trespassing.
Nope. The only Federal tresspassing law has to do with Federal
property - not personal/State/etc.
Bullshit. So you think just anyone can cross? Just anyone? It is
tresspassing and against the law. The first thing they do is break
the law. Why not do it the right way? You are against rule of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Ah! Finally a reference - but you didn't actually read it. It says:
"Improper Entry" - nothing about tresspassing.
So you play on words? What the hell do you think improper entry means?
Not a play on words, different legal definitions, differnt penalties, different jurisdictions, etc
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere than
a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the law. You
don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals with
"illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No matter
who you are.
Ok, so you're a farmer, with a farm on the border a hundred miles from the nearest border crossing. You wake one morning and find some of your
cattle
have got though the fence and are 50 yards on other side of border. So according to you, that farmer can't just hop across the border and round
them up - he has to use big truck, drive to the border crossing, then
back,
hope the cattle are still there, load them up, drive back to border
crossing, then back to farm. Might be cheaper to just wave those cattle goodby and take the monetary loss.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Cato has the facts:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than
Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its
last two years.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40246ea3845c707299136a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upecoa$1m7r2$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d723ae45fbe991354@usnews.blocknews.net:
If it's not at a legal crossing point it is against the law. No
matter who you are.
Ok, so you're a farmer, with a farm on the border a hundred miles
from the nearest border crossing. You wake one morning and find some
of your cattle have got though the fence and are 50 yards on other
side of border. So according to you, that farmer can't just hop
across the border and round them up - he has to use big truck, drive
to the border crossing, then back, hope the cattle are still there,
load them up, drive back to border crossing, then back to farm.
Might be cheaper to just wave those cattle goodby and take the
monetary loss.
Thats why there should be a fence or a wall. He's a shitty rancher if
he doesn't do that.
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down. Perhaps
you think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border -- I got
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
Cato has the facts:says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with you?
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump Than
Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many people
per month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what it
calls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while releasing
only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of
those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed
to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-be-
released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like
you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump for
Joes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was in
office?
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than
Biden.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until Border
is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on whatever
they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245af6695de458991352 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe80v$1lfqe$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
you?says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
ThanCato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump
peopleBiden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested
border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many
itper month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what
releasingcalls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while
ofonly 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority
managedthose arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden
be-to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-
forreleased-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like
you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump
inJoes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was
office?
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than
Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
The reason there are so many is because of Biden.
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until
Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to say
the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you really
thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no problem
agreeing to the bet.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and the
whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now. Tell
the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence jumpers
being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country that. How
about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came back and killed
someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people from Syria and China
are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration,
and he his working with
other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can within
the law.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd have
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e986ae927f919913ed@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
All he has to do is say follow the law, entry points only.
The majority of "illegal" aliens had a visa and entered at legal entry points.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40260bd359e49830991430 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uphm6r$2arpf$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4025e986ae927f919913ed@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
All he has to do is say follow the law, entry points only.
The majority of "illegal" aliens had a visa and entered at legal entry
points.
So you haven't seen the videos of them crossing the river and flooding
thru holes in the wall? CNN wont show that?
Go ahead, post links.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e9d8d49322059913ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
You are focusing on nothing to stop the flow. You play on words. You
support open borders and you don't care about your country. Got it.
You're the one telling everyone that the "borders are wide open". How are they supposed to know that's a lie?
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247ea73ea190e599137b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegtv$1n34p$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40246532512475ba991366 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upec99$1m7r2$4@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245d84f2a92f6b991355@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7hp$1lfqe$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
===========
See - Just like I said, you know diddly squat about the laws
involved. You still can't name the specific law that deals
with "illegal border crossing".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Do read that law - tell us the penalty for "Improper entry"
Why? I dont care. I proved it is against the law to enter anywhere
than a legal entry point. You think it's ok for them to break the
law. You don't care who comes here. You hate this country.
Don't be such a complete weasel coward - cite the penalty - and the
process for that penalty.
Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
That is all this was about. You keep moving the goal posts. You saw
the site and what the penalties are. It's very simple. You cross
anywhere than a legal entry you are breaking the law. You just posted
what that law is. That alone is reason to turn them back on the spot.
You're too much a coward to say the penalty. Knowing the penalty gives
us an idea of how "grievious" a crime it is. It's $50
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025ea1f12efade9913ef@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgtqm$275ha$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247f3af850c8e899137c@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>,Perhaps
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
gotyou think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah, you
probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border --
I
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen down.
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
Liar, they didn't take down ANY of the fence, in fact they repaired
sections that fell down.
Yes they did.
Go ahead, post a referenc.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40260c13d04efd24991432 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uphmau$2arpf$5@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4025ea1f12efade9913ef@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgtqm$275ha$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
yousays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247f3af850c8e899137c@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upeh5k$1n34p$4@dont-email.me>,Perhaps
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
I specified he had a fence, something happend to break it down.
you think once you put a fence it nothing can effect it? Yeah,
--probably do - you thought tRump's fence would close the border
down.gotI
news for you, some of that fence he built has already fallen
Mose was taken down. By the Biden team.
Liar, they didn't take down ANY of the fence, in fact they repaired
sections that fell down.
Yes they did.
Go ahead, post a referenc.
You lost an e.
IOW, you got nothing.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4025e9195b93ea089913ec@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upgtfj$275ha$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Biden IS following the law. And Biden has deported more "illegal"
aliens that tRump ever did - both in percentage and hard numbers.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Now I know you're only trolling.
I posted referenses to those facts. I guess you can't read
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40247a6753f42ed7991379@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegf1$1n34p$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402462a8b708b521991362 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upebmj$1m7r2$1@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40245a21d4f65030991351@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me>, bax02
crosssays...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets
elected, pick a charity, give an excalating donation
every 6 months (+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money
on whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone
to
aboutillegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything
trollingimmigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just
tolike Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't
have
say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If
you really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd
have had no problem agreeing to the bet.
You can't afford it.
It's not about me, it's about you
What does that have to do with you being broke?
The challenge is for you - has nothing to do with me.
It will be if you lost.
have
So show me where I said that. Or will you evade
and run away?
Again - if you're so sure that tRump would close the border, you'd
no problem with the bet because you'd be sure it would happen.
Why did you accuse me of saying that but now run from proving it?
You're the one claiming tRump will close the border - put your money
where your mouth is.
All he has to do is swipe the pen. Joe opened it wide up with the
swipe of a pen and he can close it the same way. You know by closing
the border I mean places where you are not supposed to cross. Entry
points only. Why do you have an issue with people following the law?
Biden IS following the law. And Biden has deported more "illegal" aliens
that tRump ever did - both in percentage and hard numbers.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected, pick a
charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months (+10%) until
Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have to say
the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you really
thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no problem
agreeing to the bet.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and the
whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now. Tell
the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence jumpers
being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country that. How
about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came back and killed
someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people from Syria and China
are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration,
Sure he is. He unilaterally eliminate some 90 directives on his first day which had the direct result of increasing illegal immigration.
and he his working with
other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can within
the law.
Fine, then let him restore the Presidential directives he canceled on day
one that was doing that.
I mean he could have it done in less than an hour.
I love how you expect the Biden administration to stem the tide the Biden Administration is causing.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.. he can simply reimpose thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245af6695de458991352
@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe80v$1lfqe$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
you?says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
ThanCato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump
peopleBiden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of >>>> >> Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested >>>> >> border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over
its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many
itper month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what
releasingcalls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of
those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December
31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by
Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while
ofonly 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority
managedthose arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden
be-to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-
forreleased-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative - they're just not tRumpTurds like >>>> >> you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump
inJoes fuck ups? Why didn't we have this border issue when Trump was
office?
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than
Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
The reason there are so many is because of Biden.
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that. Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will ignore each month.
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did
that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that.
Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will
ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is
that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what
they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for
them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
and Trump's support is growing.
On 2024-02-01, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245af6695de458991352 >>> @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe80v$1lfqe$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >>>> says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
you?says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
peopleCato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump
Than Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of >>>>>>> Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested >>>>>>> border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over >>>>>>> its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under
President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many
itper month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for
understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what
releasingcalls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of >>>>>>> those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December >>>>>>> 31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by >>>>>>> Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3
months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while
ofonly 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority
managedthose arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden
be-to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely-
released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative
- they're just not tRumpTurds like you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than >>>>> Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
The reason there are so many is because of Biden.
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of Trump that >> helped to secure the border?
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the country,
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>You mean policies like separating children from their parents? Policies
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did
that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that.
Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will
ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is
that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the
democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what
they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for
them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
and Trump's support is growing.
that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people?
You cross that river with children that is child abuse.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did
that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that.
Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will
ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is
that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what
they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for
them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
and Trump's support is growing.
You mean policies like separating children from their parents? Policies
that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people?
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upe7t7$1lfqe$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b2665f4478c991332@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updvbu$1k3g7$1@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4024217175d327a4991327 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updpra$1j1dp$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Put your money where your mouth is - If tRump gets elected,
pick a charity, give an excalating donation every 6 months
(+10%) until Border is completely closed.
Why? The liberals don't do that. They just spend our money on
whatever they want. Shut it down and don't allow anyone to cross
illegally.
Right here YOU are admitting that tRump will NOT do anything about
immigration that he promises - else you'd agree to the bet.
I never said that. Show me where I said that. You are just trolling
like Rudy. You have no agenda.
You are really stupid, aren't you? You (generic "you") don't have
to say the exact words in order to have admitted something. If you
really thought that tRump would close the border, you'd have had no
problem agreeing to the bet.
Again - put your money where your mouth is. Start with $100 and
increase it by 10% each 6 months until the border is closed. You
won't do it because you know damn well that tRump is a liar, and
the whole border issue is a fraud.
Fraud? I used to live on the border. It was never like it is now.
Tell the "sanctuary" cities who are now crying about all the fence
jumpers being sent there. Tell the tent cities all over the country
that. How about the guy that was deported 5 times and still came
back and killed someone. Trump wants it done legally. When people
from Syria and China are crossing the Mexican border you don't ask
questions?
Biden is not the cause of increased migration,
Sure he is. He unilaterally eliminate some 90 directives on his first
day which had the direct result of increasing illegal immigration.
and he his working with
other governments to stem the tide, and doing everything he can
within the law.
Fine, then let him restore the Presidential directives he canceled on
day one that was doing that.
I mean he could have it done in less than an hour.
I love how you expect the Biden administration to stem the tide the
Biden Administration is causing.
They are blowing smoke hoping that the low information voters will
blame Trump and with the media's support it seems to be working.
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>You mean policies like separating children from their parents?
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden
did that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have
that. Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants
we will ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention
is that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And
the democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them
what they will do for them and what the republicans won't.
Fortunately for them, they are finally catching on as Biden is
losing their support and Trump's support is growing.
Policies that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt
people?
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>You mean policies like separating children from their parents?
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden
did that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have
that. Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants
we will ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention
is that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And
the democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them
what they will do for them and what the republicans won't.
Fortunately for them, they are finally catching on as Biden is
losing their support and Trump's support is growing.
Policies that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt
people?
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime.
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from their parents.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
IOW, your "90 policies" is an entire lie and you have nothing.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
On 2/2/2024 7:41 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-02-01, scooter lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40245af6695de458991352 >>> @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe80v$1lfqe$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >>>> says..._spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40244b7da89b300c991333@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upe0g4$1kah8$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
you?says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402421cbf705f2bf99132a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <updq1d$1j1dp$5@dont-email.me>,_spamblock@baxcode.com
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402408be58db8c64991304@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upcca3$1bt1r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
says...
Your hero/god is evil.
You are a waste of my time.
Then shut the fuck up and go away
No
You can't even get your facts straight.What you have are not facts.
They make you look stupid. Why doesn't anyone here agree with
peopleCato has the facts:
================
New Data Show Migrants Were More Likely to Be Released by Trump >>>>>>> Than Biden
According to new data published last month, the Biden Department of >>>>>>> Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a higher percentage of arrested >>>>>>> border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over >>>>>>> its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be
released after a border arrest under President Trump than under >>>>>>> President Biden.
In absolute terms, the Biden DHS is removing 3.5 times as many
releasingper month as the Trump DHS did. These figures are important for >>>>>>> understanding how each administration has carried out border
enforcement.
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests?what >>> it
calls ?encounters??in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of >>>>>>> those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December >>>>>>> 31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by >>>>>>> Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.
Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3 >>>>>>> months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million?51 percent?while
ofonly 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority
managedthose arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden
to increase the removal share while also increasing the total
removals by a factor of 3.5.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-data-show-migrants-were-more-likely- >>> be-
released-trump-biden
============
note: Cato is VERY conservative
No, they're not. They're libertarian. Libertarian is not conservative, no matter
how often lying proggies lie and say it is.
- they're just not tRumpTurds like you.
Your name calling proves you have nothing. Why do you blame Trump
Because Trump is to blame.
Damn you are sold out.
You can't read either. tRump was worse about admitting migrants than >>>>> Biden. tRump just didn't have as many to deal with as Biden.
The reason there are so many is because of Biden.
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of Trump that
helped to secure the border?
No, and neither does scooter, because that didn't happen. As always, scooter never supports his lie/claims...because they're lies, and thus impossible to support.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the country,
No need to read past that stupid Nazi little person lie.
You and Hartung and all the other fuckwits who keep bleating that Biden is "trying" to destroy the country could not advertise your little person status any more if you were trying. You believe, because you're stupid, that Biden's policies will destroy the country, and that because Biden is knowingly adopting
these policies, that he is "trying" to destroy the country. That's just fucked-up stupid little people thinking. *Biden* doesn't think his policies will
destroy the country; he doesn't even think they will /damage/ the country. He believes them to be the right policies. So we have Biden's beliefs vs. the beliefs of stupid illiterate degreeless knuckle-draggers who piss away most of
their short remaining time in Usenet. Whom should the public believe?
Hey, stupid illiterate degreeless knuckle-dragging little people! Did you see the story in the Gold Standard this morning?
U.S. Job Growth Surges
The labor market added 353,000 jobs in January, far more than expected, in a
sign that economic growth remains vigorous.
Lydia DePillis
Feb 2, 2024
The United States delivered a much-bigger-than-expected batch of jobs last
month, adding further evidence that the economy still has plenty of steam.
Employers added 353,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department reported on
Friday, and the unemployment rate remained at 3.7 percent.
After the loss of 14 percent of the nation?s jobs early in the Covid-19
pandemic, the labor market?s endurance for more than three years has
surprised economists, who expected factors including the Federal Reserve?s
interest rate increases to slow hiring more sharply. The strong data on
Friday is likely to reinforce the Fed?s patience in beginning to cut rates.
?There?s layoffs happening, but workers are able to find new positions,? said
Sara Rutledge, an independent economics consultant. ?It?s almost like a
?pinch me? scenario.?
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/02/business/jobs-report-january-economy
How do you like that, little people?
Look, little people: you simply cannot deny those numbers. If it makes you feel
better, you can tell yourselves that Biden doesn't get credit for it. That's fine with me; I actually don't care. But you can't deny the numbers, and those
numbers prove that Biden is *not* destroying the country.
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is that a
bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and tRump and his
lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is
that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and
tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40273eff47b8514f9914f0@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
Go ahead list those "89 canceled border polices".
You won't - because you can't - they don't exist.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is
that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and
tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
In article <upji2d$2o7tt$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime.
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from their
parents.
Who did that? What river did they cross? You're starting to spin shit
again.
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill?
After all, it *is* a Republican bill.
On 2024-02-03, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40273eff47b8514f9914f0@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
Go ahead list those "89 canceled border polices".
You won't - because you can't - they don't exist.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is
that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and
tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire
crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
Here is 64 decisions that Joe Biden has made that have caused the
border mess.
<https://www.speaker.gov/64-times-the-biden-administration-intentionall y-undermined-border-security/
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:41:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the country, which it is most
definitely doing.
Letting Trump run again? I agree.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans for not wanting to "secure" the
border.
Why shouldn't they? It really is the Republicans' fault.
What they fail to mention is that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place.
Biden wasn't President in the 1950s.
And sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies.
As much as we try to educate Republicans and Magas, we just can't seem to make any
headway. Most of them can barely read and those that can are of the conspiracy theory
variety who are incapable of differentiating between fantasy and reality. That is, they'd
rather believe a lie than the truth.
And the democrats use this tactic all the time.
I've noticed the Dems trying to educate the public before but I'd hardly describe it as
'all the time'.
How long have they been dragging the blacks out
during major elections and telling them what they will do for them and what the republicans won't.
Ever since the GOP abandoned them in the early 1970s.
Fortunately for them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support and Trump's
support is growing.
He lost the popular vote twice.
He lost the House.
He lost the Senate.
He crashed the GOP's 2022 'red wave'.
He's fractured his party's House so badly they can barely agree on a speaker. Worse, House Republicans are at war with Senate Republicans.
He can't keep his mouth shut and is driving his incompetent lawyers nuts.
And he's starting to slide in the general election polls.
The GOP convention drama ought to be a hoot!
Trump is a loser. Let him run so the voters can decide. I have full faith that the
American electorate will dump him again and this time they'll send him packing with his
Maga Congress shoved up his fat ass.
Swill
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40273d6fd33d87489914ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upji2d$2o7tt$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from their
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime. >>
parents.
Who did that? What river did they cross? You're starting to spin shit again.
So taking a swim in a river with your kids is "child abuse"?!!! HOODATHNK! So millions of everyday Americans are child abusers for taking their kids
to the river to cool off in hot weather.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham? Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed without ever seeing
the text of the bill.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40273eff47b8514f9914f0@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
Go ahead list those "89 canceled border polices".
You won't - because you can't - they don't exist.
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is
that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and
tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upkc07$2vued$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40273eff47b8514f9914f0@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
How do you know? Were you there?
Go ahead list those "89 canceled border polices".
You won't - because you can't - they don't exist.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
never happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies. What's not a lie is
that a bipartisan group of Senators put together a border bill and
tRump and his lackys in the House say it's DOA.
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire
crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
Here is 64 decisions that Joe Biden has made that have caused the
border mess.
<https://www.speaker.gov/64-times-the-biden-administration-intentionall y-undermined-border-security/
Speaker Mike Johnson?!! the tRumpTurd that refused to fix any of the
border issues?
And your list contains NO objective evidence that any of those 64 caused
an increase in immigration. They are just policy disagreements - mostly based on propaganda
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:filsripseb3j9c109c4g4tk63r98pmm48o@4ax.com:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill?
After all, it *is* a Republican bill.
They're in a habit of opposing their own legislation - except for tax cuts and anything that hurts people.
In article <upkbb4$2vrqk$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40273d6fd33d87489914ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upji2d$2o7tt$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another
crime.
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from
their parents.
Who did that? What river did they cross? You're starting to spin
shit again.
So taking a swim in a river with your kids is "child abuse"?!!!
HOODATHNK! So millions of everyday Americans are child abusers for
taking their kids to the river to cool off in hot weather.
Crossing in one with swift current and the shore lined with razor wire
is a little different. Your playing with words won't work.
In article <upkbhv$2vrqk$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire
crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
I say close the border except for legal entry points. Simple and the
way it should be.
Allowing them to just enter without turning them back is not
propaganda. They do not have to allow them to cross anywhere but a
legal entry point.
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
In article <uplmrg$366mp$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:filsripseb3j9c109c4g4tk63r98pmm48o@4ax.com:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), potheadThey're in a habit of opposing their own legislation - except for tax
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill?
After all, it *is* a Republican bill.
cuts and anything that hurts people.
You are so full of fake news and kool aid it's scary.
In article <sdjqri5n56d103m2m93hrh2k22p0fmf6co@4ax.com>, governor.swill@gmail.com says...
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:41:37 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
Letting Trump run again? I agree.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border.
Why shouldn't they? It really is the Republicans' fault.
What they fail to mention is that Biden's policies caused the
problem in the first place.
Biden wasn't President in the 1950s.
And sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies.
As much as we try to educate Republicans and Magas, we just can't
seem to make any headway. Most of them can barely read and those
that can are of the conspiracy theory variety who are incapable of
differentiating between fantasy and reality. That is, they'd rather
believe a lie than the truth.
And the democrats use this tactic all the time.
I've noticed the Dems trying to educate the public before but I'd
hardly describe it as 'all the time'.
How long have they been dragging the blacks out
during major elections and telling them what they will do for them
and what the republicans won't.
Ever since the GOP abandoned them in the early 1970s.
Fortunately for them, they are finally catching on as Biden is
losing their support and Trump's support is growing.
He lost the popular vote twice.
He lost the House.
He lost the Senate.
He crashed the GOP's 2022 'red wave'.
He's fractured his party's House so badly they can barely agree on a
speaker. Worse, House Republicans are at war with Senate Republicans.
He can't keep his mouth shut and is driving his incompetent lawyers
nuts. And he's starting to slide in the general election polls.
The GOP convention drama ought to be a hoot!
Trump is a loser. Let him run so the voters can decide. I have full
faith that the American electorate will dump him again and this time
they'll send him packing with his Maga Congress shoved up his fat
ass.
Swill
and all you got is Taylor Swift.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
You mean policies like separating children from their parents?
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did
that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that.
Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will
ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is
that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the
democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what
they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for
them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
and Trump's support is growing.
Policies
that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people?
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2fh$2l7v8$3@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-01, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>You mean policies like separating children from their parents?
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden
did that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have
that. Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants
we will ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention
is that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And
the democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them
what they will do for them and what the republicans won't.
Fortunately for them, they are finally catching on as Biden is
losing their support and Trump's support is growing.
Policies that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt
people?
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime.
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from their parents.
IOW, your "90 policies" is an entire lie and you have nothing.Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40273d6fd33d87489914ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upji2d$2o7tt$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from their
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another crime. >>>
parents.
Who did that? What river did they cross? You're starting to spin shit
again.
So taking a swim in a river with your kids is "child abuse"?!!!
HOODATHNK!
So millions of everyday Americans are child abusers for taking their kids
to the river to cool off in hot weather.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402844e11d7eccc999159a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbb4$2vrqk$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40273d6fd33d87489914ee@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upji2d$2o7tt$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4026e3f1d299c3b6991460@usnews.blocknews.net:
You cross that river with children that is child abuse. Another
crime.
That's the same "logic" that took Native American children from
their parents.
Who did that? What river did they cross? You're starting to spin
shit again.
So taking a swim in a river with your kids is "child abuse"?!!!
HOODATHNK! So millions of everyday Americans are child abusers for
taking their kids to the river to cool off in hot weather.
Crossing in one with swift current and the shore lined with razor wire
is a little different. Your playing with words won't work.
1. do they know the razor wire is there?
2. do you understand they are fleeing for their very lives?
No, it's not child abuse by any sane definition.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40284533c5255b8c99159b@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbhv$2vrqk$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
That costs money.So you would do nothing to address this "screaming, hair on fire
crisis" because ONE migrant MIGHT slip in!
I say close the border except for legal entry points. Simple and the
way it should be.
You can't just intone: "the border is closed, except for
legal entry points"
and expect anything to happen.
The bipartisan Senate
bill provides money for hiring more border agents and you tRumpTurds say "Dead on Arrival".
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can
see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >>>> says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can >>>>>> see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely demanded his >>> cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and
In article <upqpc7$ahe9$9@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will never
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
Joe said Iran was at war with Russia and
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all
can see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely
demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and the way he spells Trump shows his
frustration.
In article <upqpc7$ahe9$9@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...never
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
Joe said Iran was at war with Russia and the proceeded to stumble off
stage.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402ada15ef582d299916eb@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all
can see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely
demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and the way he spells Trump shows his
frustration.
Yes he did, it's been all over the real news.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402ad9c0a7f0da89916ea@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc7$ahe9$9@dont-email.me>, me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...never
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
Joe said Iran was at war with Russia and the proceeded to stumble off stage.
No, he didn't. Biden has said the Iran is ally of Russia.
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:24:33 -0500, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 10:07:54 -0500, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing changes. >>>>
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all can see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill? After all, it *is* a
Republican bill.
Well?
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present proof that the GOP does NOT want a resolution to
the border crisis.
Swill
In article <uprcii$e218$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comoff
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402ad9c0a7f0da89916ea@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc7$ahe9$9@dont-email.me>,never
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upjhsh$2o7tt$2@dont-email.me...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upj2mo$2l7v8$5@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-02, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upgth1$275ha$2@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.40247dec5c6a7a7699137a@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upegr1$1n34p$2@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
And how is he supposed to do that? wave a majic wand?
Just like how he opened it.
IOW, you have no clue
He canceled 89 policies to open the border.
That's a fucking lie - There were NOT "89 policies" on the border
. he can simply reimpose
thos policies by the same way... Executive Order.
But then Biden would have to admit he screwed up and that will
happen. I don't see why though?
He can just add it to the list of dozens of other things he has
screwed up.
He didn't screw up - those are fucking lies.
A majority of American citizens feel otherwise about it.
Joe said Iran was at war with Russia and the proceeded to stumble
stage.
No, he didn't. Biden has said the Iran is ally of Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP9S4cUUWB4&t=16s
<BOOM>
In article <uprcjq$e218$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comall
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402ada15ef582d299916eb@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we
opposedcan see what a sham it is.So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely
demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and the way he spells Trump shows his
frustration.
Yes he did, it's been all over the real news.
Your news? Yea right.
In article <l9e2sih76alakgkfpsekm2ihqp7sq6uls2@4ax.com>, governor.swill@gmail.com says...
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:24:33 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 10:07:54 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all
can see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill?
After all, it *is* a Republican bill.
Well?
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present proof that the GOP does NOT
want a resolution to the border crisis.
Swill
Not when it includes more money for crooked Ukraine then it does for
the border. It still allows people to cross illegally. It's a useless
bill.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402b22996e90d9b1991776 @usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uprcjq$e218$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.comall
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402ada15ef582d299916eb@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we
opposedcan see what a sham it is.So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely
demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and the way he spells Trump shows his
frustration.
Yes he did, it's been all over the real news.
Your news? Yea right.
The Hill, Bloomberg, Forbes, and many, many more. Even FAUX NUZ
============
Trump blasts Biden-backed border bill at Las Vegas rally: 'Rather have no bill than a bad bill'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-biden-backed-border-bill- didnt-need-bill
===========
tRump wants to keep the border as a campaign issue.
============
Trump brags about efforts to stymie border talks: 'Please blame it on me'
The Republican front-runner slams bipartisan talks in the Senate for a
deal as Biden calls for emergency authority to address surging crossings
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/27/trump-border-biden/
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402b22e9fda0573b991777@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <l9e2sih76alakgkfpsekm2ihqp7sq6uls2@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com says...
On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 20:24:33 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 10:07:54 -0500, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:09:06 -0000 (UTC), pothead
<pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:<snip>
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all
can see what a sham it is.
You don't think it would be a good idea to negotiate a better bill?
After all, it *is* a Republican bill.
Well?
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present proof that the GOP does NOT
want a resolution to the border crisis.
Swill
Not when it includes more money for crooked Ukraine then it does for
the border. It still allows people to cross illegally. It's a useless
bill.
You, and tRump, were opposed to the bill before you ever saw the text.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.402ada15ef582d299916eb@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upqpc8$ahe9$11@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upmu51$3chc5$4@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.402845bbb6e7a31b99159d@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <upkbl2$2vrqk$3@dont-email.me>,
bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:upk782$2reg3$1@dont-email.me:
On 2024-02-03, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:So you're saying Republicans in the Senate are party to a sham?
Because it still allows them to entry illegally. So nothing
changes.
The text of the bill is supposed to be posted shortly so we all
can see what a sham it is.
Meanwhile, you're admitting that tRump and the House are opposed
without ever seeing the text of the bill.
I never said any of that moron. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Either you are a liar or totally ignorant. tRump absolutely
demanded his cult in the House kill any and all border fixes.
Cite. Provide the quote, date and source.
Trump never did that and the way he spells Trump shows his
frustration.
Yes he did, it's been all over the real news.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 98:07:48 |
| Calls: | 6,699 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,349,459 |