Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's not an answer to my question. Try again:
Madison Cawthorn Urges Fellow Conservatives to Leave College
"Unless you are becoming a doctor or lawyer or engineer, I highly encourage you to drop out," Cawthorn stated.www.newsweek.com
Madison Cawthorn Urges Fellow Conservatives to Leave College
"Unless you are becoming a doctor or lawyer or engineer, I highly encourage you to drop out," Cawthorn stated.
I teach Gay & Lesbian Haiku.
It certainly wasn't for Cawthorn.I understand that you are ignorant as all hell, but
"University" is not for everyone.
Nor is it necessary for success.
It certainly wasn't for Cawthorn.
Typically in a protests there aren't 100 plus cops injured. Plus 4 death.
So your naming seems inappropriate there.
Best case scenario in your case is calling it a riot it requires 3 or more people carrying out an act of violence that present a clear and present danger to property or people. Both do obviously apply.
An insurrection requires a few more things. It requires the motive for the disturbance being to overthrow the established government and taking the powers for yourself.
The stated goal was to stop the certification of Biden as president in favor of Trump. I don't think proving it rose to the legal definition of insurrection is a slam dunk case but it isn't an impossible one either. In any case anyone calling it an insurrection is a hundred times more accurate than someone calling it a protest.
The real rub will be able to prove that someone who was present and spoke at the rally beforehand can be considered part of that insurrection. It would probably depend on his exact wording
I say let them do it. It sets a precedence for disqualifying the politicians that supported every "mostly peaceful protest" that destroyed neighborhoods across the country.View attachment 586449
A group of North Carolina voters told state officials on Monday that they want Republican congressman Madison Cawthorn to be disqualified as a congressional candidate, citing his involvement in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.
Cawthorn questioned the outcome of the presidential election during the “Save America Rally” before the Capitol riot later that day that resulted in five deaths.
At the rally, Cawthorn made baseless claims that the election had been stolen from Donald Trump, and has been accused of firing up the crowd, many of whom went on to storm the Capitol.
Lawyers filed the candidacy challenge on behalf of 11 voters with North Carolina’s board of elections, which oversees a process by which candidate qualifications are scrutinized.
The voters say Cawthorn, who formally filed as a candidate last month, cannot run because he fails to comply with an amendment in the constitution ratified shortly after the civil war.
The 1868 amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”.
A group of North Carolina voters told state officials on Monday that they want Republican congressman Madison Cawthorn to be disqualified as a congressional candidate, citing his involvement in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.
Cawthorn questioned the outcome of the presidential election during the “Save America Rally” before the Capitol riot later that day that resulted in five death
At the rally, Cawthorn made baseless claims that the election had been stolen from Donald Trump, and has been accused of firing up the crowd, many of whom went on to storm the Capitol.
Lawyers filed the candidacy challenge on behalf of 11 voters with North Carolina’s board of elections, which oversees a process by which candidate qualifications are scrutinized.
The voters say Cawthorn, who formally filed as a candidate last month, cannot run because he fails to comply with an amendment in the constitution ratified shortly after the civil war.
The 1868 amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same”.
Why do you think that?
www.newsweek.com
Link that quote!Trump has since claimed the January 6 the attack on the Capitol was the greatest movement.
The thing with all these statements is that any halfway competent lawyer can chalk anything Trump says out of court as "political speech" something that might be enough to pass the reasonable doubt threshold. This is why criminal cases require extraordinary proof, especially when the defendant is a former president. I don't like it but that's the way it is.Trump has since claimed the January 6 the attack on the Capitol was the greatest movement.
Bullshit stupid that is. Peacefully Protesting Derek Chauvin being a murderous cop had nothing to do with a sitting Democrat president losing an election and inciting a mob to stop the winner at the Capitol from being inaugurated so they could stay in power.say let them do it. It sets a precedence for disqualifying the politicians that supported every "mostly peaceful protest" that destroyed neighborhoods across the country.
Bullshit stupid that is. Peacefully Protesting Derek Chauvin being a murderous cop had nothing to do with a sitting Democrat president losing an election and inciting a mob to stop the winner at the Capitol from being inaugurated so they could stay in power.
Destroying private and public property is not a fucking protest.Bullshit stupid that is. Peacefully Protesting Derek Chauvin being a murderous cop had nothing to do with a sitting Democrat president losing an election and inciting a mob to stop the winner at the Capitol from being inaugurated so they could stay in power.
The thing with all these statements is that any halfway competent lawyer can chalk anything Trump says out of court as "political speech" something that might be enough to pass the reasonable doubt threshold. This is why criminal cases require extraordinary proof, especially when the defendant is a former president. I don't like it but that's the way it is.
Didn’t say it was, idiot. Jan 6 was a mob assembled by Trump to help him stay in the White House after losing the election. The Chauvin riots had absolutely no connection to any Democrat politician or political operative. And the looting and burning had nothing to do with the peaceful protests. it’s criminals who loot stores when they think police are busy across town dealing with the protests.Destroying private and public property is not a fucking protest.
Didn’t say it was, idiot. Jan 6 was a mob assembled by Trump to help him stay in the White House after losing the election. The Chauvin riots had absolutely no connection to any Democrat politician or political operative. And the looting and burning had nothing to do with the peaceful protests. it’s criminals who loot stores when they think police are busy across town dealing with the protests.
Really? What's the statute on political speech?
circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
Protection of Core Political Speech – Civil Rights
civilrights.uslegal.com
True...but Cawthorne should be kicked out of the GOP.The left steals an election and now wants to cover it up?
The protestors were trying to stop the steal.Didn’t say it was, idiot. Jan 6 was a mob assembled by Trump to help him stay in the White House after losing the election.
