Let's make something clear.

[Marchimedes]

Are you trying to speak English here?

Yes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump is as guilty as the rat caught with the cheese.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump is as guilty as the rat caught with the cheese.

Retarded Horses is dumber than the cheese

 

[scruffy]

Wallace walked through the evidence for the first component of her finding in detail over 102 pages. She focused on the timeline of Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021 — which she said showed that Trump desired this outcome. And she documented his history of promoting and legitimizing political violence — which she said helps prove he incited the riot.

“The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification,” Wallace wrote.
She added that Trump’s “inaction during the violence and his later endorsement of the violence corroborates the evidence that his intent was to incite violence on January 6, 2021 based on his conduct leading up to and on January 6, 2021.”

Among her other key findings:

• “Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud.”
• “He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.”
• “[T]he Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.”
• She ruled that Trump’s inaction during the riot didn’t itself constitute engaging in insurrection, but that it was evidence “that he intended for the crowd to engage in violence when he sent them to the Capitol ‘to fight like hell.’”
• She wrote that Trump’s 2:24 p.m. tweet on Jan. 6 attacking Vice President Mike Pence, an hour after he had been informed of unrest at the Capitol according to a White House employee’s testimony, “caused further violence at the Capitol.”
• She said Trump’s comments after the fact show he “endorsed and intended the actions of the mob on January 6, 2021.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/20/judge-says-trump-incited-insurrection-other-judges-have-come-close/

Totally fucking idiotic.

We have another mind reading judge. Fucking morons in robes. If you compiled a list of every politician who said "fight like hell" you'd have every politician who ever lived.

Judges like this are completely retarded, they shouldn't be on the bench.

 

[Coyote]

You are the leader of this community and that's your fu(kin reply? Other than protecting my children I don't think the word 'obsessed' has much to do with me. I said that you sending my thread "There's a crew of clever Fascists trying to derail our site" to The Rubber Room, a mod of yours told me you said you sent it there cause of a 'non-political' thread title' was Bull$h!t. Benito Mussolini was the first Fascist. "Fascist" is a political term he coined thus my thread title was political. But you know my thread title was political therefor your sending my thread downstairs to The Rubber Room was done because of political bias. I killed it in that thread, you can't have that wandering around in the Politics sub-forum.



Go fu(k yourself. All you've said is you need censure me. I get it, you're a lefty, I'm a righty, you are in charge of this site, this site is a private entity and thus your will holds sway. But then, lady this site is supposed to be an interweb political debate forum and I have arrived. It's all very easy to run a site like this when the best the right can post is "your gay" until the likes of me comes along. Here we are. You should not have replied to me. If you further engage me I'll whup you. More. When this moment in the past reared it's ugly head I used to counsel the left to pretend all this never happened. Run away and sooner or later we'll all forget about it. I recently came up with a more betterer reply from the left... change the subject. That way the lefty hasn't all out fled yet gets to feel engaged. You try it! I expect more from the leader of this site. You. So far I'm handing you your azz, site leader.

 

[MagicMike]

Retarded Horses is dumber than the cheese

Here's intheButtAgain with nothing substantive to add to the thread but trolling insults mocking other people's intelligence.
Go find somewhere else to preen princess.
This is a place where adults have conversations.

 

[Libby von H]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

Wrong on the facts, on the Constitution -- and vitiated by galactically illogical reasoning
1) If what you said were obvious then putting him on the ballot ON THE BALLOT would be the answer since few Americans would vote for a man they could pellucicly see was not electable. It's like jury nullification.

2) history shows the foolishness and the illegality of such a move. Lincoln only was elected because he was barred in several state ballots.

3) We do not have a full conviction so this is forestalling judicial proceedings.

 

[BackAgain]

Here's intheButtAgain with nothing substantive to add to the thread but trolling insults mocking other people's intelligence.
Go find somewhere else to preen princess.
This is a place where adults have conversations.

Here’s MangledDick again with nothing substantive to add but his constant trolling ….

Libturds like him always do what they falsely accuse others of doing.

 

[Libby von H]

12 cases on the Act in History. If you are charging with Insurrection then the Bill of Rights demand a fair Trial and conviction.

Willy Nilly you are guilty just because is Where in the Constitution

It happened in DC , the area administered DIRECTLY by Congress

Elected from jail, DC official advances voting rights and racial justice
Convict Joel Caston is seeking redemption through public service.

ByDevin Dwyer, Abby Cruz, and Sarah Herndon
August 1, 2021

Does anybody remember the DC mayor (originally from Memphis I think)

Marion Barry, Washington’s ‘Mayor for Life,’ Even After Prison​

Drug offenses, sexual offenses, prison time but became mayor.
I still remember laughing over his slogan
Barry ran under the slogan "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C."

So Trump should be fine if someone like Barry serverd in multiple positions with felony charges

Holding political office after a felony conviction​

The Post Star
https://poststar.com › blogs › warren_pieces › holding-...



Oct 30, 2013 — In the early 1990s, then-mayor of Washington DC, Marion Barry, was convicted of a felony following a drug sting in which he was videotaped ...

 

[MagicMike]

Here’s MangledDick again with nothing substantive to add but his constant trolling ….

Libturds like him always do what they falsely accuse others of doing.

 

[BackAgain]

Go suck another hobo’s diseased cock, MangledDick.

 

[MagicMike]

Go suck another hobo’s diseased cock, MangledDick.

You sound triggered princess.

 

[BackAgain]

You sound triggered princess.

Nah. That’s just your wishful thinking, MangledDick.

You’re so transparent and fraudulent.

 

[Marchimedes]

You are the leader of this community and that's your fu(kin reply? Other than protecting my children I don't think the word 'obsessed' has much to do with me. I said that you sending my thread "There's a crew of clever Fascists trying to derail our site" to The Rubber Room, a mod of yours told me you said you sent it there cause of a 'non-political' thread title' was Bull$h!t. Benito Mussolini was the first Fascist. "Fascist" is a political term he coined thus my thread title was political. But you know my thread title was political therefor your sending my thread downstairs to The Rubber Room was done because of political bias. I killed it in that thread, you can't have that wandering around in the Politics sub-forum.



Go fu(k yourself. All you've said is you need censure me. I get it, you're a lefty, I'm a righty, you are in charge of this site, this site is a private entity and thus your will holds sway. But then, lady this site is supposed to be an interweb political debate forum and I have arrived. It's all very easy to run a site like this when the best the right can post is "your gay" until the likes of me comes along. Here we are. You should not have replied to me. If you further engage me I'll whup you. More. When this moment in the past reared it's ugly head I used to counsel the left to pretend all this never happened. Run away and sooner or later we'll all forget about it. I recently came up with a more betterer reply from the left... change the subject. That way the lefty hasn't all out fled yet gets to feel engaged. You try it! I expect more from the leader of this site. You. So far I'm handing you your azz, site leader.

View attachment 887747

If you further engage me I'll whup you.

The original then the reply. Changes everything, doesn't it? I'm still on Mussolini. I enjoy harping on him lately cause of the buku times liberals have called Trump, and me by association so this is personal a Fascist then I ask "define Fascist/Fascism?" Fascism is Mother government control of the means of production. Like Hillter demanding that Messerschmidt make 109's. Like SlowJoeBiden demanding that Ford make EV's. Oh my, is the pace of destruction too much for you? I understand I'm a tad longwinded but sometimes it takes a paragraph or two to make a point. You should have read ALL the words. I get it, you're running a troll battle here. There is room for me to bring fresh content but you are in my way.

What fu(kin rule have I broke?

Put my thread back!

What time is it?