Two conservative law scholars argue Trump should not be eligible to run again for president

[otto105]

Trump didn’t engage in an insurrection.

Hilarious

Please see indictments on the issue.

 

[Orangecat]

He tried to overturn the election fraudulently.

No, he didn’t.

That’s insurrection.

It may be, but that’s not what he did. He questioned the results due to many irregularities, much like democrats have been doing for 20+ years.

You can claim he didn’t if you like, but the alleged behavior still fits the definition

No, your emotions have clouded your ability to honestly assess the situation, BillyIQ.

 

[Orangecat]

Hilarious

Please see indictments on the issue.

Indictments are just accusations, fool. Think better.

 

[otto105]

So, you don't know any convicts running either. Why did you lie?

Did a jury not find the former 1-term fuckup guilty of the following;

Running a fake charity.

A fake university

And a sexual abuser.

 

[otto105]

No, he didn’t.

It may be, but that’s not what he did. He questioned the results due to many irregularities, much like democrats have been doing for 20+ years.

No, your emotions have clouded your ability to honestly assess the situation, BillyIQ.

Suck it sycophant

 

[Billy000]

Hilary did the same thing in 2016

Uh no that is no where remotely true.

 

[theHawk]

That’s not the actual activity these charges are based on. The actual charges is based on him creating false electors pressuring officials to change the vote count.

Don’t be so childish about this. There were three recounts in a red state ran by Republican officials and the election results stayed the same. You’re a sore loser. Man up and accept he lost.

Recounts of fraudulent votes will produce the same outcome.

They needed ballot verification, voter ID, signature verification, and proof of chain of custody.

 

[Independentthinker]

Did a jury not find the former 1-term fuckup guilty of the following;

Running a fake charity.

A fake university

And a sexual abuser.

No

No

civil trial

None of these make you a convict

 

[Billy000]

Recounts of fraudulent votes will produce the same outcome.

They needed ballot verification, voter ID, signature verification, and proof of chain of custody.

None of that is evidence of actual voter fraud. None of that is evidence Trump is actually the victor. Even if the lack of measures you’re talking about would inevitably affect the vote count, for all you know the vote tally is different but Trump still lost. You’re not giving any actual evidence he won. You’re making blind assumptions.

 

[otto105]

Uh no that is no where remotely true.

More maga whataboutism bullshit.

 

[otto105]

Indictments are just accusations, fool. Think better.

Evidence that led to an indictment.

 

[Cellblock2429]

From the article:

“Two conservative law professors argue that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The constitutional scholars, both active in the conservative Federalist Society, studied the question for more than a year, according to The New York Times.

The answer, according to Baude: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

The provision they studied is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states that any person who took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” is prohibited from holding any government office.”

Billy000’s take:

I guess the knee jerk response to this from Republicans will be “they aren’t real conservatives!”, despite none of them even knowing who these guys are but that won’t stop me from posting the best possible source for this argument.

Trump Is Disqualified From Holding Office, Conservative Law Professors Argue

Two constitutional law academics determined that the Constitution bars Trump from becoming president again due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

www.yahoo.com

/----/ That's their opinion. So what?

 

[Billy000]

/----/ That's their opinion. So what?

They are constitutional scholars. Easy to use the same logic back at you. You think Trump did nothing wrong. So what?

 

[otto105]

/----/ That's their opinion. So what?

They make a far better case for it than the former 1-term lawyers who advised him that Hang Mike Pence could throw the election to the House.

 

[Orangecat]

Suck it sycophant

Evidence that led to an indictment.

That’s an incoherent response to my post, dope.

 

[otto105]

That’s an incoherent response to my post, dope.

Do you know how a grand jury works?

 

[theHawk]

None of that is evidence of actual voter fraud. None of that is evidence Trump is actually the victor. Even if the lack of measures you’re talking about would inevitably affect the vote count, for all you know the vote tally is different but Trump still lost. You’re not giving any actual evidence he won. You’re making blind assumptions.

There has been mountains of evidence. Video footage of the rigging.

But since CNN claims it doesn’t mean anything, you do as you are commanded and believe it.

 

[Billy000]

There has been mountains of evidence. Video footage of the rigging.

But since CNN claims it doesn’t mean anything, you do as you are commanded and believe it.

Lol mountains of evidence huh? Why haven’t we seen it? I mean what does this video evidence you’re talking about even show? How could you possibly determine it is evidence of voter fraud unless the video showed documentation up close? Ever if it did, where is the evidence of it now?

 

[otto105]

There has been mountains of evidence. Video footage of the rigging.

But since CNN claims it doesn’t mean anything, you do as you are commanded and believe it.

All of it debunked.

And all your left with is rudy's sweaty hair gel head.

 

[Orangecat]

Do you know how a grand jury works?

Do you know how a conversation works?