On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 10:17:58 AM UTC-5, Lock Him Up 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.
Article II of the Constitution lays down the first three. Anybody can run
for president as long as they are at least 35 years old, are a natural-
born citizen and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
After the Civil War, members of Congress added a fourth test. Not wanting
this country to fear that federal officials might again attempt to
overthrow the government, they added the 14th Amendment which, among other >> provisions, disqualifies as a candidate for any federal office anybody who >> swore to uphold the Constitution and then sought to overturn it.
The language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is clear: “No person
shall…hold an office, civil or military, under the United States…who,
having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United >> States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Then Congress added an important final clause: “But Congress may by a vote >> of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Which leaves only three questions. First: Did Donald Trump “engage in
insurrection” and/or “give comfort to” those who did? Absolutely. Even >> though not yet convicted of doing so (which the Constitution does not
require), we know from multiple sources, including his own words on tape,
that Trump summoned an armed mob to Washington to attack the U.S. Capitol; >> called state officials to find him more votes; called members of the
Electoral College to persuade them to change their votes; pressured Vice
President Pence not to certify the Electoral College results; and has
promised to pardon those convicted in the Jan. 6 attack.
Second question: Has Congress by a two-thirds vote given Donald Trump a
free pass? No.
Third question: Do we believe in the Constitution or not? If so, there’s >> only one answer.
Banning Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot does not deprive
the people from their right to vote. It simply affirms the United States
Constitution. Case closed.
LOCK HIM UP
Libtard legal "scholars" don't confirm anything but their own political biases.
The Supreme Court will sort this all out and they aren't going to allow a handful
of local election officials to rig the presidential election in Biden's favor.
In article <UBVpN.237113$xHn7.121878@fx14.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
says...
On 1/17/2024 11:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <hoTpN.26893$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.
He's heading to prison.
Nope and
In article <uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
Still no insurrection charges against Trump.
In article <CicqN.70445$STLe.2086@fx34.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
says...
On 1/18/2024 8:18 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
...
Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less >>>>>>> convicted
of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
...
Wrong again, Scout:
First Rudy claims I'm wrong
|<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
| Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
|
| The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
| another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
| of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
|
| The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
| have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
| Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
| breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
| ...
Then ends up proving I'm right.
No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
--bks
Still no insurrection charges against Trump.
Not needed for disqualification under 14.3
Not happening
In article <WJiqN.257381$xHn7.108261@fx14.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
says...
On 1/18/2024 9:32 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <CicqN.70445$STLe.2086@fx34.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
says...
On 1/18/2024 8:18 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
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
Still no insurrection charges against Trump.
Not needed for disqualification under 14.3
Not happening
Happening right now.
Nope.
I lose again.
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.
Governor Swill 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
In article <uoe48d$36i11$2@dont-email.me>, chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com
says...
NoBody 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.
Who says he is guilty of insurrection?
Rudy
In article <20240119093140.430a9397@Johnny>, johnny@invalid.net says...
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:25:00 -0800
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thusYou're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
leftist have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is
guilty of insurrection.
Who says he is guilty of insurrection?
DENVER ? A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald
Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the
U.S. Capitol.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot
NPR =
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many more times does he have to lose?
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many more times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>, twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
So you think the people can elect a foreigner as
president if they want to, or a teenager, or a gerbil.
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many more times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
Nope. Biden is leading Trump.
Trump is leading Haley, and Haley is leading Biden, but
your claim is false.
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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 presidentNone of which disqualify him.
and 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
more times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
So you think the people can elect a foreigner as
president if they want to, or a teenager, or a gerbil.
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
more
times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
Nope. Biden is leading Trump.
Trump is leading Haley, and Haley is leading Biden, but
your claim is false.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in >news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many more >times does he have to lose?
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
"El Kabong" wrote in message
Skeeter wrote:
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
So you think the people can elect a foreigner as
president if they want to, or a teenager, or a gerbil.
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
more
times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
Nope. Biden is leading Trump.
In which state?
Which poll?
Trump is leading Haley, and Haley is leading Biden, but
your claim is false.
Links please.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4014ada5b06c8448990dd6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for presidentNone of which disqualify him.
and who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for
president, with four big exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and
until he's actually charged and convicted in court (not just
the "court of public opinion"). If these supposed "Legal
Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd question their education
and competance.
AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even been charged with insurrection
much
less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE
Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
more times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
riiight - he got about 7.5% of registered voters in Iowa.
On 1/19/2024 9:49 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <0cxqN.145928$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.
I do believe in it. 14.3 is part of the Constitution, and following it is following the rule of law. A criminal conviction is not needed for 14.3 disqualification. This is settled.
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many more times does he have to lose?
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
In article <uofa01$3crg9$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014ada5b06c8448990dd6@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
more times does he have to lose?
He's ahead.
riiight - he got about 7.5% of registered voters in Iowa.
He won Iowa. You are sad the the people have spoken.
"Baxter" wrote in message news:uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in >>news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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 presidentNone of which disqualify him.
and 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.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
more times does he have to lose?
Donald Trump's 73.6 Million Popular Votes Is Over 7 Million More Than
Any Sitting President in History
http://tinyurl.com/684n952w
"Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in
news:uofja6$3ht33$1@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" wrote in message news:uoept9$3ag70$1@dont-email.me...
Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in >>news:MPG.4014469fd37bbd21990d73@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <qhvjqi19o7q8ef2em8km60dqn8ofv2oaa1@4ax.com>,tRump lost the popular vote in 2015, 2018, 2020, and 2022. How many
twang@the.noodle says...
Governor Swill 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$5@dont-email.me>,
patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
The Constitution is clear about who can run for presidentNone of which disqualify him.
and who cannot. It says any American citizen can run for
president, with four big exceptions.
Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and
until he's actually charged and convicted in court (not just the
"court of public opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars"
are saying otherwise, I'd question their education and
competance.
AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even been charged with insurrection
much
less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE
Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
What if a candidate had a different disqualifying
attribute, like not being 35 yet, or not being an
american by birth.
Would you still say "let the voters decide"? And if they
elected him anyway, would he be removed from office ex
post facto, like some birther nuts thought Obama should
be removed? At what point do the constitutional
requirements kick in? Or are they merely suggestions to
inform the voters?
None of that is happening. Let the people decide.
more times does he have to lose?
Donald Trump's 73.6 Million Popular Votes Is Over 7 Million More Than
Any Sitting President in History
http://tinyurl.com/684n952w
============
Trump has received 47.2 percent of the popular vote, compared to President-elect Joe Biden's 51 percent. Recently, Biden broke his own
record with 79 million votes and counting, giving him the most votes of
any presidential candidate in history.
-ibid.
=========
Yeah, tRump got more votes than any SITTING president - and still lost.
On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote:
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted childNo charges for committing insurrection.
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
No charges.
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. 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. >>>
False.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?
In article <sGTqN.78749$CYpe.10001@fx40.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 9:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <eeTqN.116709$q3F7.66677@fx45.iad>,
another.loser@terrells.pals says...
On 1/20/2024 7:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
{snip}
He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
under 14.3.
Oh? How so?
I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere >>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
-WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There was a
trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is subject
to judicial review.
There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A >>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial >>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>> through incitement."
When was he criminally charged and convicted?
Not needed.
Then why were the other people?
Because powerful criminal cases were made against them, and they were found guilty.
Powerful criminal cases *are* being prosecuted against Trump, and he will be >> found guilty and sent to prison, where he will die.
Why isn't Trump in jail now.
You said he's guilty.
In article <UITqN.78751$CYpe.11068@fx40.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
No charges.
On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6HqN.211867$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. 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. >>>
False.
No rape charges either.
On 1/20/2024 10:52 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote:
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted childNo charges for committing insurrection.
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
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. >>>>>
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.
False.
Irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the event *was* an insurrection.
It was.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?
Because seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice as long as
the maximum sentence for insurrection. The maximum sentence for the former is 20
years, versus only 10 for the latter. You could look it up. I have. Here's a helpful hint: the criminal code section number for seditious conspiracy is exactly one higher than that for insurrection. But I'm not going to tell you what they are. I don't go out of my way to help out a Nazi little person.
In article <J1VqN.32820$9cLc.5946@fx02.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:01 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <UITqN.78751$CYpe.11068@fx40.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with Insurrection
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. >>>>>>>
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.
False.
No rape charges either.
Found liable for rape.
Yep.
In article <DKWqN.44752$U1cc.2673@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <J1VqN.32820$9cLc.5946@fx02.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:01 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <UITqN.78751$CYpe.11068@fx40.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with 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.
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
False.
No rape charges either.
Found liable for rape.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
In article <uKWqN.44751$U1cc.42972@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5ZUqN.32817$9cLc.3898@fx02.iad>, lb@cap.con says...
So why isn't Trump in jail for seditious conspiracy?
On 1/20/2024 10:52 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:No charges for committing insurrection.
In article <5eTqN.116701$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:Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with 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.
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
False.
Irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the event *was* an insurrection.
It was.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?
Because seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice as long as
the maximum sentence for insurrection. The maximum sentence for the former is 20
years, versus only 10 for the latter. You could look it up. I have. Here's a
helpful hint: the criminal code section number for seditious conspiracy is >>>> exactly one higher than that for insurrection. But I'm not going to tell you
what they are. I don't go out of my way to help out a Nazi little person. >>>
He's going to prison for his other election related crimes.
If they wanted him in jail and say he is guilty of "seditious
conspiracy" he would be in jail.
In article <KKWqN.44753$U1cc.22137@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <R0VqN.32819$9cLc.9720@fx02.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:00 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <sGTqN.78749$CYpe.10001@fx40.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 9:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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:The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
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."
When was he criminally charged and convicted?
Not needed.
Then why were the other people?
Because powerful criminal cases were made against them, and they were found guilty.
Powerful criminal cases *are* being prosecuted against Trump, and he will be
found guilty and sent to prison, where he will die.
Why isn't Trump in jail now.
That's a question. You should terminate a question with a question mark ? you
know, one of these little thingies: '?'
He's not in jail yet because he hasn't been tried and convicted yet. If he >>>> believed in his own innocence, he wouldn't be playing this delaying game. He
doesn't want to go to trial because he knows he's guilty.
You said he's guilty.
He is factually guilty. He has not yet been found legally guilty, but he will
be. That makes you cry.
Yea and
Yeah, and he's going to prison. Yeah.
Yea and
On 1/20/2024 2:04 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uKWqN.44751$U1cc.42972@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5ZUqN.32817$9cLc.3898@fx02.iad>, lb@cap.con says...
On 1/20/2024 10:52 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut>
wrote:
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,No charges for committing insurrection.
convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5eTqN.116701$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.
False.
Irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the event *was* an
insurrection.
It was.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?
Because seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice >>>>> as long as
the maximum sentence for insurrection. The maximum sentence for the
former is 20
years, versus only 10 for the latter. You could look it up. I have.
Here's a
helpful hint: the criminal code section number for seditious
conspiracy is
exactly one higher than that for insurrection. But I'm not going to
tell you
what they are. I don't go out of my way to help out a Nazi little
person.
So why isn't Trump in jail for seditious conspiracy?
He's going to prison for his other election related crimes.
If they wanted him in jail and say he is guilty of "seditious
conspiracy" he would be in jail.
He has to go to trial first. That's coming.
"Michael A Terrell" wrote in message news:zIXqN.245214$Wp_8.233998@fx17.iad...
On 1/20/2024 2:04 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <uKWqN.44751$U1cc.42972@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/20/2024 11:40 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5ZUqN.32817$9cLc.3898@fx02.iad>, lb@cap.con says...
On 1/20/2024 10:52 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-01-20, Michael A Terrell <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> >>>>>> wrote:
On 1/20/2024 9:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,No charges for committing insurrection.
convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <5eTqN.116701$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.
False.
Irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the event *was* an
insurrection.
It was.
Plenty of other charges though.
Why would that be?
Because seditious conspiracy carries a maximum prison sentence twice >>>>> as long as
the maximum sentence for insurrection. The maximum sentence for the >>>>> former is 20
years, versus only 10 for the latter. You could look it up. I have. >>>>> Here's a
helpful hint: the criminal code section number for seditious
conspiracy is
exactly one higher than that for insurrection. But I'm not going to >>>>> tell you
what they are. I don't go out of my way to help out a Nazi little
person.
So why isn't Trump in jail for seditious conspiracy?
He's going to prison for his other election related crimes.
If they wanted him in jail and say he is guilty of "seditious
conspiracy" he would be in jail.
He has to go to trial first. That's coming.
Men in white coats are coming for the loony leftists too.
On 1/22/2024 4:16 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 08:32:22 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/21/2024 8:05 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:32:16 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
{snip}
It is not settled law whether "engaging in insurrection" in 14.3 is in >>>>> reference to the crime of insurrection (18 U.S. Code § 2383).
Good grief. Hiding in psuedointellectualism again I see.
Disqualifying someone based on a criminal offense (insurrection)
Stop begging the question (*).
(*) For the others who read my reply, should we have a side bet on
whether "Nobody" 1) knows what "begging the question" means, and 2) and
if he does, can he identify the question being begged?
Instead of addressing what was asked of you (after editing it out),
you now descend into personal attacks.
Way to go - you just dropped further down the ladder.
And Josh applies his pseudointellectualism to avoid addressing the
topic once again.
pseudointellectualism : noun. Logic which "Nobody" doesn't understand.
In article <fWwrN.296259$xHn7.12096@fx14.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/22/2024 8:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
None ? the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew they were
"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 >>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 >>>>>>>>> through incitement."
<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. >>>>>>>>>
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 >>>>
disqualified, scooter.
Were you there?
It's a matter of public record.
Which you don't seem to have.
much less did so after they were pardoned.
There were no pardons, scooter.
In article <8mxrN.176581$vFZa.46578@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/22/2024 8:50 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <fWwrN.296259$xHn7.12096@fx14.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/22/2024 8:38 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <ezwrN.295268$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 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"?
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?
It's a matter of public record.
Which you don't seem to have.
I have it. I've posted it. Here it is again, you lazy sloppy illiterate HIV+ >> shit-4-braincell.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
Finally Rudy come up with something beside "it's already been posted"
In article <JuasN.186391$vFZa.8590@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 7:42 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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$1@dont-email.me...
Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording >>>>>>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition). >>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE
Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such >>>>>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter. >>>>>>>>>>>
The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted". >>>>>>>>>
Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
criminal behavior.
So Insurrection isn't a crime?
It is a crime, scooter.
And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.
Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.
You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?
Because Trump hasn't been charged with it.
Irrelevant.
So you don't care about rule of law
In article <jvasN.186392$vFZa.25996@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 7:43 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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
No.
Were you in jail during that time?
In article <AM9sN.49209$U1cc.20671@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 6:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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.
No, I didn't. What I said was that when it took the jury a couple of days to >> come back with a verdict, that meant that at least one juror initially voted to
convict him.
No. You said before the trial he was guilty.
In article <dFasN.186400$vFZa.98146@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 8:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <jvasN.186392$vFZa.25996@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 7:43 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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
No.
Were you in jail during that time?
Unlike you, I've never been incarcerated at any time.
Prove I have.
In article <%CasN.186398$vFZa.94270@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 7:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <AM9sN.49209$U1cc.20671@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 6:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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
"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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
{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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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.
No, I didn't. What I said was that when it took the jury a couple of days to
come back with a verdict, that meant that at least one juror initially voted to
convict him.
No. You said before the trial he was guilty.
I didn't. I said what I just told you above. That's what I said.
More lies.
You were saying he was guilty before, during and after the trial.
In article <uorgal$1suuq$7@dont-email.me>, scooter lied:
"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 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.
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 [sic], or was it merely assumed they were?
Assumption is not a basis for law.
Tell Rudy that.
In article <iMasN.67190$zqTf.434@fx35.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 8:13 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <%CasN.186398$vFZa.94270@fx13.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 7:41 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <AM9sN.49209$U1cc.20671@fx04.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/24/2024 6:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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:
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
{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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 all the proof needed. >>>>>>>>
Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
He said Rittenhouse was guilty too.
No, I didn't. What I said was that when it took the jury a couple of days to
come back with a verdict, that meant that at least one juror initially voted to
convict him.
No. You said before the trial he was guilty.
I didn't. I said what I just told you above. That's what I said.
More lies.
No.
You were saying he was guilty before, during and after the trial.
No.
This is why you
In article <efEuN.39250$Wbff.9@fx37.iad>, mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 1/31/2024 2:59 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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 >>>>> 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.
Why are you spinning away from that it is a crime period?
Is it? Prove it.
Already done.
In article <MIavN.56355$5Hnd.31916@fx03.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 2/2/2024 10:35 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
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 >>>> that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people?
wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of
Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did >>>>>> that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that. >>>>>> Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will >>>>>> ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the
country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans
for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is >>>>> that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And
sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the >>>>> democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what >>>>> they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for >>>>> them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support
and Trump's support is growing.
You cross that river with children that is child abuse.
No.
Yes.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did
anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
Concession of defeat noted.
They commit crimes when they cross illegally.
In article <2KwvN.297908$PuZ9.212579@fx11.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 2/2/2024 4:55 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <MIavN.56355$5Hnd.31916@fx03.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 2/2/2024 10:35 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >>>>> says...
You cross that river with children that is child abuse.
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:You mean policies like separating children from their parents? Policies >>>>>> that actually did nothing to secure the border and only hurt people? >>>>>
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:upebu4$1m7r2$2@dont-email.me...
Do explain how Biden is the cause.
Easy. Remember Day one when Biden eliminated some 90 policies of >>>>>>>> Trump that helped to secure the border?
That's TOTALLY on Biden's head. Not his VP, not Congress, Biden did >>>>>>>> that... unilaterally. He is solely and utterly to blame.
and he could undo that just as easily.. but no.. we can't have that. >>>>>>>> Instead now we need a law about how many illegal immigrants we will >>>>>>>> ignore each month.
It's pure lunacy and obviously being done on purpose to destroy the >>>>>>> country, which it is most definitely doing.
And the democrats are all over the airwaves blaming the republicans >>>>>>> for not wanting to "secure" the border. What they fail to mention is >>>>>>> that Biden's policies caused the problem in the first place. And >>>>>>> sadly, the low information voters, are falling for the lies. And the >>>>>>> democrats use this tactic all the time. How long have they been
dragging the blacks out during major elections and telling them what >>>>>>> they will do for them and what the republicans won't. Fortunately for >>>>>>> them, they are finally catching on as Biden is losing their support >>>>>>> and Trump's support is growing.
No.
Yes.
No. It's settled.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did >>>>>> anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
Concession of defeat noted.
They commit crimes when they cross illegally.
You were challenged to prove that and you admitted you can't. You lose.
I did and
In article <6izvN.65796$SyNd.39179@fx33.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 2/3/2024 2:24 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <2KwvN.297908$PuZ9.212579@fx11.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
I did and
On 2/2/2024 4:55 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <MIavN.56355$5Hnd.31916@fx03.iad>,
mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
On 2/2/2024 10:35 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
In article <upj32e$2lilb$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com >>>>>>> says...
You cross that river with children that is child abuse.
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:You mean policies like separating children from their parents? Policies
"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? >>>>>>>
No.
Yes.
No. It's settled.
Go ahead, list those 90 policies and let's see if ANY actually did >>>>>>>> anything to secure the border.
Keep the blinders on.
Concession of defeat noted.
They commit crimes when they cross illegally.
You were challenged to prove that and you admitted you can't. You lose. >>>
You didn't. You couldn't, and you admitted it.
You're a fat homo.
I posted a link.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:55:43 |
| Calls: | 6,853 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,355 |
| Messages: | 5,416,316 |