It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump

[justoffal]

That he's running on a republican ticket is a joke and as far as I'm concerned, he never should have been pardoned and should be tossed back into the slammer.

YAWWWWWN....very boring

 

[justoffal]

Desperate.

It wasn't supposed to be like this...

Post indictment and post mugshot... Biden is down and Trump is up...

View attachment 822581

Oh noes! Every Liberal Panic!!!

Most people realize that a large part of the prosecution is selective enforcement and politically motivated. Ty hey didn't count on that.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is, of course, absolutely zero legal basis for Krispy Kreme to sue Trump. Synthia is just being an asshole, again.

Yes, Shitty Lawyer knows more than Lawrence Tribe and J. Michael Lettig about what's Constitutionally possible.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, Shitty Lawyer knows more than Lawrence Tribe and J. Michael Lettig about what's Constitutionally possible.

I’m not now nor have I even been a shitty lawyer, Synthia. But I know tons more than you will ever grasp. And by the way, Tribe and other alleged “experts” can and do disagree.

Unlike you, the ones engaged in those discussions have some bases for their beliefs and opinions. All you’ve ever had is your ignorance and erroneous bias.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

I’m not now nor have I even been a shitty lawyer, Synthia. But I know tons more than you will ever grasp. And by the way, Tribe and other alleged “experts” can and do disagree.

Unlike you, the ones engaged in those discussions have some bases for their beliefs and opinions. All you’ve ever had is your ignorance and erroneous bias.

It's 'basis'.

Yes, experts disagree, but when the ones who agree are prominent Constitutional scholars from the right, left, and everywhere in-between, then the ones who disagree are the fringe, to be ignored.

And if you didn't bother to read the OP, this includes the founder of the Federalist Society.

 

[BackAgain]

It's 'basis‘

Wrong. Its bases. Plural.

It’s best not to try to correct others while you’re very wrong and ignorant yourself, you moron.

Yes, experts disagree, but when the ones who agree are prominent Constitutional scholars from the right, left, and everywhere in-between, then the ones who disagree are the fringe, to be ignored.

But you’re now making shit up. You simply like what a couple of basically lib “scholars” opine. Simpletons, such as you, are incapable of delving deeper.

And if you didn't bother to read the OP, this includes the founder of the Federalist Society.

Simpletons, like you, again only care about the stated conclusions of “experts” when you happen to agree — but your agreement is solely political desire, not educated consideration.

 

[Synthaholic]

But you’re now making shit up. You simply like what a couple of basically lib “scholars” opine. Simpletons, such as you, are incapable of delving deeper.

In what universe is J. Michael Lettig a Liberal?

Stop embarrassing yourself, Shitty Lawyer.

 

[BackAgain]

In what universe is J. Michael Lettig a Liberal?

Stop embarrassing yourself,.

I’m not embarrassing myself. I’m exposing you, you failed human.

Also, if didn’t say that he was a liberal. You asshole. I said a couple of basically lib scholars. Take a libtard position on something, and that’s what you’re stuck with. Like all of your posting efforts.

 

[Synthaholic]

I’m not embarrassing myself. I’m exposing you, you failed human.

Also, if didn’t say that he was a liberal. You asshole. I said a couple of basically lib scholars. Take a libtard position on something, and that’s what you’re stuck with. Like all of your posting efforts.

In what universe is J. Michael Lettig a "lib scholar"?

In what universe is the founder of The Federalist Society a "lib scholar"?

It's a simple question.

 

[BackAgain]

In what universe is J. Michael Lettig a "lib scholar"?

In what universe is the founder of The Federalist Society a "lib scholar"?

It's a simple question.

Simplistic. Not the same thing.

Meanwhile, you’re stuck on stupid.

Your imbecility aside, the actual point remains. Legal “scholars” may disagree. You don’t grasp any of the reasons FOR such disagreement. You’re just a plodding ignorant left-biased hack who likes one resulting argument. You wouldn’t grasp the opposing views under any circumstances.

 

[Synthaholic]

Simplistic. Not the same thing.

Meanwhile, you’re stuck on stupid.

Your imbecility aside, the actual point remains. Legal “scholars” may disagree. You don’t grasp any of the reasons FOR such disagreement. You’re just a plodding ignorant left-biased hack who likes one resulting argument. You wouldn’t grasp the opposing views under any circumstances.

I love it when you continually admit that I'm right by refusing to directly answer simple questions.

 

[MarathonMike]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

Maybe Christie should sue MacDonalds for making him into a 400 pound slob.

 

[BackAgain]

I love it when you continually admit that I'm right by refusing to directly answer simple questions.

I have always noted that you’re wrong. And your faux questions suck ass like you do.

 

[BothWings]

MAGAts would kill him.

Cheeseburgers and veal parmigiana will kill Chris Christi.

 

[BothWings]

Maybe Christie should sue MacDonalds for making him into a 400 pound slob.

You beat me to it, dammit!

 

[Ropey]

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump

Thank You

Thank You The Truth Matters. I WOULD RATHER LOSE BY TELLING THE TRUTH THAN LIE TO WIN. Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Do Not Sell My Information PAID FOR BY CHRIS CHRISTIE FOR PRESIDENT, INC. Contributions to Chris Christie for President, Inc. are not deductible as charitable contributions...

chrischristie.com

 

[woodwork201]

The only ones Chris Christie needs to be suing is Hostess and Krispy Kreme.

 

[BackAgain]

I believe that Chris Christie, despite all his tough-talking bluster, is too much of a coward to do this. His ego and narcissism cannot be so large that he actually thinks he will one day be POTUS. Rationalizing to himself that he doesn't want to piss off voters who may vote for him in 2028 is delusional.

It's time for Chris Christie to sue Donald Trump​

The former president is likely disqualified to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. One of his GOP primary opponents needs to get the ball rolling in court.

snip

With Trump’s commanding lead in the polls, and Christie and Hutchinson languishing in the single digits in Iowa, it may seem odd to suggest that they might stand the best chance of keeping Trump from regaining the White House. But that may be the case, thanks to a Reconstruction-era addition to the Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states, in brief, that no person who previously swore to support the Constitution but then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” can be allowed to hold any federal or state office. As Republican candidates for president who say they believe Trump is unfit for office, one or both of them should sue to keep him off the ballot.


During Wednesday’s debate, Hutchinson noted that he said more than a year ago that “Donald Trump was morally disqualified from being president again” because of the role he played in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. “More people are understanding the importance of that, including conservative legal scholars, who say he may be disqualified under the 14th Amendment from being President, again, as a result of the insurrection,” Hutchinson said. “And so obviously, I’m not going to support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony, or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”

The conservative legal scholars Hutchinson referred to include William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. They wrote an upcoming law review article that not only lays out why Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is still in effect, despite Congress granting amnesty to Confederates in the late 19th century, but also why the section disqualifies Trump.

Since the draft version of their article was published on SSRN earlier this month, more voices have joined Baude and Paulsen's, including that of J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School. Luttig and Tribe argued in The Atlantic that “this provision of our Constitution continues to protect the republic from those bent on its dissolution.” The question is how to take that legal analysis from theory into practice. It’s one that’s going to have to be answered quickly, as the first challenge to Trump’s eligibility was filed in a South Florida federal court Friday.

A contender ^ for dumbest post of the year.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is, of course, absolutely zero legal basis for Krispy Kreme to sue Trump. Synthia is just being an asshole, again.

Because Shitty Lawyer knows more about the law than Lawrence Tribe, Michael Luttig, and law professor Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society.

Tell us your credentials, Shitty Lawyer. Which online law school did you get your degree from?

You're a fucking joke.