23 minutes and you will understand why Trump is innocent

[SeaMajor7]

It your sanity isn’t!

 

[ThisIsMe]

The guy who led an insurrection against the United States Of America!

Nobody has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

Why is it, with all of the indictments flying around, both with trump and all of those involved with J6, and not a single one has been charged with insurrection?

If it is as plain as day as you all claim it to be, there should have been several, including trump, to have been charged with it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

90+ felony charges say different. The judge and jury have to presume innocence. I don’t. He’s guilty and a life sentence would be too short.

90+ felony charges, of which insurrection is not one of them.

 

[konradv]

90+ felony charges, of which insurrection is not one of them.

Who cares what you want to call it, as long as the verdict is guilty?

 

[konradv]

Nobody has been charged or convicted of insurrection.

Why is it, with all of the indictments flying around, both with trump and all of those involved with J6, and not a single one has been charged with insurrection?

If it is as plain as day as you all claim it to be, there should have been several, including trump, to have been charged with it.

It’s sort of like when women who get an abortion are called murderers, despite there being no such legal basis.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Who cares what you want to call it, as long as the verdict is guilty?

Well, to disqualify him, you need an insurrection charge.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It’s sort of like when women who get an abortion are called murderers, despite there being no such legal basis.

Well, in this case, there is a legal basis, one that needs to be met. So far, it hasn’t been

 

[konradv]

Well, to disqualify him, you need an insurrection charge.

No, that isn’t true. A simple going back on one’s oath will do.

 

[konradv]

Well, in this case, there is a legal basis, one that needs to be met. So far, it hasn’t been

The legal basis is wuite broad. Narrowing it down to a word does not meet legal scrutiny. It’s kind of open-ended, which precludes such a limited interpretation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, that isn’t true. A simple going back on one’s oath will do.

That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goes

 

[konradv]

That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goes

It’s very open-ended in its wording, therefore open to interpretation and not as strictly constructed as you would have us believe.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The legal basis is wuite broad. Narrowing it down to a word does not meet legal scrutiny. It’s kind of open-ended, which precludes such a limited interpretation.

No, not really. “Insurrection” isn’t just “whatever we say it is”. Even if it were, the 14th ammendment says that congress has the authority to enforce the ammendment by appropriate legislation, which they did by passing the insurrection act. So far, nobody has been charged under that act. Nobody has proven an insurrection took place, all you have is a riot that got out of hand, of which nobody is charged with insurrection.

I understand that the left wants to be able to say that they can just charge him with a “broad definition”, but the 14th ammendment is specific.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It’s very open-ended in its wording, therefore open to interpretation and not as strictly constructed as you would have us believe.

Ahh really? Open to interpretation? Ok, then some will interpret it as not being an insurrection, and that the definition is more precise. so the case is closed. Their word is as good as yours, right?

 

[konradv]

No, not really. “Insurrection” isn’t just “whatever we say it is”. Even if it were, the 14th ammendment says that congress has the authority to enforce the ammendment by appropriate legislation, which they did by passing the insurrection act. So far, nobody has been charged under that act. Nobody has proven an insurrection took place, all you have is a riot that got out of hand, of which nobody is charged with insurrection.

I understand that the left wants to be able to say that they can just charge him with a “broad definition”, but the 14th ammendment is specific.

I know it’s not whatever I say it is. It’s whatever the SC says it is. Your analysis isn’t inherently superior to mine, but your “narrow construction” flies in the face of decades of precedent.

 

[Arlette]

That’s not a part of the 14th ammendment, as far as DQ goes

Of course it it. The 14th was written for a case like this.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I know it’s not whatever I say it is. It’s whatever the SC says it is. Your analysis isn’t inherently superior to mine, but your “narrow construction” flies in the face of decades of precedent.

Well, there’s no precedent because, as far as I’m aware, nobody has ever been charged under the insurrection act

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course it it. The 14th was written for a case like this.

Where in the 14th ammendment does it mention the word oath?

I mean, if we’re going to use that as a disqualifying thing, combined with it all being “up to interpretation”, then there’s a whole lot of disqualification that needs to go around.

 

[Winco]

Please take the stand and Testify under oath today.
No dodging question by taking the 5th or saying "I don't recall"

Happening NOW, just got called to the stand.

 

[Edgetho]

Guilt or Innocence have nothing to do with dimocrap scum.

Not now, not ever.

They are what I have ALWAYS said they are -- The scum of the Earth

 

[Robert W]

Trump is a criminal and does not deserve to be on the ballot in a single state.

So you say go to hell with justice!!!! I note that. I do not agree and it is up to the public and not you and me to decide that for the public.