1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.SUPPORT.TRANSGENDERED

  • Re: Why Section 3 Disqualification Doesn't Require a Prior Criminal Con

    From David Hartung@21:1/5 to Gong on Fri Dec 29 16:10:02 2023
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show

    On 12/29/23 14:37, Gong wrote:

    The reason is a combination of the general structure of our legal system
    and the original meaning of Section 3.

    Legal experts say it's only a matter of time before Trump's in a prison cell for a hundred years or so anyway. Why else would he be going for a Hail Mary play by begging for immunity?

    Which legal experts are those?

    Personally I think that you are on drugs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Skeeter@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 29 15:33:00 2023
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show

    In article <umnaln$v3nn$3@dont-email.me>, elonx@protonmail.com says...


    The reason is a combination of the general structure of our legal system >and the original meaning of Section 3.

    Legal experts say it's only a matter of time before Trump's in a prison cell for a hundred years or so anyway. Why else would he be going for a Hail Mary play by begging for immunity?

    All bullshit. Post proof.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)