Here is What Disqualifies Trump From Running for President

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.
What Gore did was likely very, very wrong.
He encouraged and rewarded obvious voter fraud at all levels, from the state to the SCOTUS.

And of course Pence is an idiot or lying, because the whole point of having the previous VP certify an election is to prevent moving ahead with swearing in if there is even a hint of voter fraud.
Rejecting the vote count is EXACTLY what Pence and all VPs are authorized to do.
Moving ahead and ignoring any claim of voter fraud at all, totally discredits the entire government.
It demands pitchforks and torches.
That is the only possible avenue left.
And I say that as a far left, Trump-hater.
No hint of voter fraud should ever be left uninvestigated.

You are a comedian in training aren't you?

 

[Rigby5]

I personally Trump broke the law when facilitated false electors to attempt to interfere in the election of Biden.

Well that is why we are having a court case...

If Trump was innocent then why does he act so guilty.

There is absolutely no possibility of "false electors" in any way.
The election results, who the electors are, as well as how they are supposed to vote is all public knowledge before the state legislature convenes in order to hear their vote.

This is obvious since "faithless" electors who do not vote as the public indicated, can be subject to criminal penalties.
There are 5 states who penalize electors who vote differently than the public voted.
There are 15 states that override and refuse votes by electors who are "faithless" and vote differently than pledged.
So clearly state legislators are paying a great deal of attention to electors and how they vote.
So there is no way to commit any sort of elector fraud.
Electors do not go to DC.
The cast their vote openly in a session of the state legislature.

As far as asking Pence to delay certification, that is exactly what Pence is supposed to do if there is any doubt at all over election fraud.

 

[JustAGuy1]

According to CONSERVATIVE Judge Michaeel Luttig, a constitutional expert, what disqualifies Trump from running for President is his violation of the Executive Vesting Clause of tthe Constitution.

"I would only say this: All that any of us are able to do is evaluate the positive, objective law — in this instance, the Constitution and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Under the plain, clear terms of Section 3, the former president would be disqualified from holding the presidency again — specifically, for the reason that his plan and effort and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the powers of the presidency on Joe Biden, constitutes a clear violation of the Executive Vesting Clause in the Constitution, which prescribes that a president will hold office for only a four-year term, unless and until he is re-elected to the presidency by the American people. The former president’s effort to overturn the election and remain in power is precisely what constitutes a rebellion against the Constitution of the United States."

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Good luck

 

[Godboy]

According to CONSERVATIVE Judge Michaeel Luttig, a constitutional expert, what disqualifies Trump from running for President is his violation of the Executive Vesting Clause of tthe Constitution.

"I would only say this: All that any of us are able to do is evaluate the positive, objective law — in this instance, the Constitution and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Under the plain, clear terms of Section 3, the former president would be disqualified from holding the presidency again — specifically, for the reason that his plan and effort and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power, notwithstanding that the American people had voted to confer the powers of the presidency on Joe Biden, constitutes a clear violation of the Executive Vesting Clause in the Constitution, which prescribes that a president will hold office for only a four-year term, unless and until he is re-elected to the presidency by the American people. The former president’s effort to overturn the election and remain in power is precisely what constitutes a rebellion against the Constitution of the United States."

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Well if Judge Luttig says so, then it MUST be true. Everyone knows that Luttig has never been wrong. We have all followed his judicial adventures for decades!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

As far as asking Pence to delay certification, that is exactly what Pence is supposed to do if there is any doubt at all over election fraud.

Wrong again. It is up to Congress to raise objections to a states EC vote, not the President of the Senate, who is merely the master of ceremony on Jan 6th. His one and only power is to count the votes.

Furthermore, the new legislation codifies that fact.

 

[Rigby5]

We have 50 elections and each state has it own election laws.

That is true, but to make all of us more secure in our rights, they should standardize.
All the elections should follow whatever rules are best.
And since all voters are supposed to register ahead of time, then they all have a voter ID that should be checked.
No drop boxes.
And computers obviously are trivial to hack, as well as hide fraud, so they should never be used.
There is just a lot of obvious common sense all states should adhere to.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong again. It is up to Congress to raise objections to a states EC vote, not the President of the Senate, who is merely the master of ceremony on Jan 6th. His one and only power is to count the votes.

Furthermore, the new legislation codifies that fact.

Wrong.
There is no way for Congress to raise objections to the electoral vote of the states if the vote is certified BEFORE there is any investigation at all.
The whole point of having someone certify a count is that they can then delay certification if there is any doubt.
The actual "objections to the states EC vote" are impossible to ascertain until AFTER an investigation.
Any vote should always be delayed certification if there is any possible doubt at all.

Failing to delay certification if there is any doubt at all, amounts to an insurrection.
All voter fraud doubt must always be investigated.
The precedent set by the SCOTUS in 2000, was that no investigation was needed if the Sec of State delayed until the 3 week time limit was up.
And that clearly is totally illegal.
Worst SCOTUS ruling since the Dread Scott Decision.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no way for Congress to raise objections to the electoral vote of the states if the vote is certified BEFORE there is any investigation at all.

Yes there is. All it use to take is one Representative from the House in conjunction with a Senator in writing (the new law requires more). Both chamber would then debate the challenge and take a vote on whether or not to uphold the challenge. It takes both chambers voting yes to uphold a challenge. Note, the President of the Senate has no authority to raise an objection at all.

 

[MagicMike]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you aren’t allowed to challenge an election. There is a legal process to do so, which is what President Trump believed should be followed. But it wasn’t even attempted anyway.

Wrong!
Jack Smith and Fani Willis will be presenting slam dunk incontrovertible evidence that Trump didn't just legally "protest" an election.
He led a multi-pronged attempted coup attempting to steal one.

There was no armed “insurrection”, only a protest against an obviously rigged election.

There has never been any credible evidence produced that the election was "rigged."
Also, if you take time to educate yourself on the actual facts of the weapons involved in the insurgency you won't sound so stupid in the future trying to make claims like this.

PolitiFact: Tucker Carlson is wrong. Firearms, other weapons at Capitol on Jan. 6

Tucker Carlson is wrong. Firearms, other weapons were found at the Capitol on Jan. 6

www.statesman.com

 

[billyerock123]

Wrong.
What Gore did was likely very, very wrong.
He encouraged and rewarded obvious voter fraud at all levels, from the state to the SCOTUS.

And of course Pence is an idiot or lying, because the whole point of having the previous VP certify an election is to prevent moving ahead with swearing in if there is even a hint of voter fraud.
Rejecting the vote count is EXACTLY what Pence and all VPs are authorized to do.
Moving ahead and ignoring any claim of voter fraud at all, totally discredits the entire government.
It demands pitchforks and torches.
That is the only possible avenue left.
And I say that as a far left, Trump-hater.
No hint of voter fraud should ever be left uninvestigated.

You have no clue in what you are talking about

It creates a new threshold for members to object to a slate of electors (one-fifth of the members of both the House and the Senate), identifies the role of the vice president as “solely ministerial” and clarifies that Congress must defer to the slates as determined by the states.

Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15, the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President, which have been submitted by the states, are counted in a joint session of Congress, presided over by the Vice President.

 

[billyerock123]

Well if Judge Luttig says so, then it MUST be true. Everyone knows that Luttig has never been wrong. We have all followed his judicial adventures for decades!!!

Being a Nobel prise winner on law I would say his failure on what is and what isn’t law is very slim to nothing

 

[billyerock123]

Good luck

No trump needs the good luck.. so far he has lost 99 % of his attempts to appeal what ever … he keeps losing … best thing that can happen for this country … trump goes to jail and all the states that kicks him off the voting roll for the primary… life would be great for us all … just to see him melt down behind bars … the country will be elated with joy …

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong again. It is up to Congress to raise objections to a states EC vote, not the President of the Senate, who is merely the master of ceremony on Jan 6th. His one and only power is to count the votes.

Furthermore, the new legislation codifies that fact.

Wrong.
The word "certify" has meaning, and it does NOT mean "master of ceremony".
It means that if there is any doubt at all in the mind of Pence, that then it would be illegal for him to ignore that doubt and abdicate his duty to only certify what he is sure is true.

There is no "new legislation" that alters that fact.
It is true it is up to Congress to investigate and decide what to do, but the role of the VP to delay certification if there is any doubt, is absolute.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes there is. All it use to take is one Representative from the House in conjunction with a Senator in writing (the new law requires more). Both chamber would then debate the challenge and take a vote on whether or not to uphold the challenge. It takes both chambers voting yes to uphold a challenge. Note, the President of the Senate has no authority to raise an objection at all.

That is the slow challenge process that can NOT occur if the VP were to certify immediately.
You can't uncertify after a representative finally submits his challenge in writing.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong!
Jack Smith and Fani Willis will be presenting slam dunk incontrovertible evidence that Trump didn't just legally "protest" an election.
He led a multi-pronged attempted coup attempting to steal one.

There has never been any credible evidence produced that the election was "rigged."
Also, if you take time to educate yourself on the actual facts of the weapons involved in the insurgency you won't sound so stupid in the future trying to make claims like this.

PolitiFact: Tucker Carlson is wrong. Firearms, other weapons at Capitol on Jan. 6

Tucker Carlson is wrong. Firearms, other weapons were found at the Capitol on Jan. 6

www.statesman.com

That has to be a lie because is no way for a president to stay in power regardless of what happens to the election.
When their term is over, then they are no longer president.
The only way for a president to still be president after their term is over, is if re-elected and re-inaugurated.

And clearly you are lying about the weapons.
The police were fully armed and could easily have wiped out the entire protest.
When Ashlie was killed, the police coming up from the basement obviously had full auto M-4 machineguns.

 

[Rigby5]

You have no clue in what you are talking about

It creates a new threshold for members to object to a slate of electors (one-fifth of the members of both the House and the Senate), identifies the role of the vice president as “solely ministerial” and clarifies that Congress must defer to the slates as determined by the states.

Pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15, the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President, which have been submitted by the states, are counted in a joint session of Congress, presided over by the Vice President.

Wrong.
Obviously the whole point of requiring a certification process is the chance the VP would have to deny certification if there was sufficient suspicion of wrong doing.
Can states submit illegal slates?
Of course they can.
We saw it happen in FL in 2000.

 

[elektra]

Luttig = DeepSwamp Reptile

Luttig = DeepSwamp Reptile passed over for supreme court judge numerous times, now a bitter old man getting even for the latest president to not nominate him to the court

 

[BlindBoo]

That is the slow challenge process that can NOT occur if the VP were to certify immediately.
You can't uncertify after a representative finally submits his challenge in writing.

The President of the Senate calls for the objections. If none are heard then he counts the votes that were verified and certified by the State(s).

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.
The word "certify" has meaning, and it does NOT mean "master of ceremony".
It means that if there is any doubt at all in the mind of Pence, that then it would be illegal for him to ignore that doubt and abdicate his duty to only certify what he is sure is true.

There is no "new legislation" that alters that fact.
It is true it is up to Congress to investigate and decide what to do, but the role of the VP to delay certification if there is any doubt, is absolute.

Again the VP is master of ceremony and has no authority to reject the votes, only the Congress can do that.

The certificates and other papers relating to the electoral count
are presented and acted on in alphabetical order by states. 3 USC
Sec. 15. Where more than one set of certificates have been received
from a state, and each set purports to be the duly appointed electors
from that state, the Vice President presents the certificates, with
all attached papers, in the order in which they have been received.
Deschler Ch 10 Sec. 3.5. If there are conflicting electoral
certificates from the same state, the two Houses during the joint
session may, by unanimous consent, determine which certificate is to
be accepted as valid. The tellers may then be directed to count the
votes in the certificate deemed valid. Deschler Ch 10 Sec. 3.5.

Objections

An objection to the counting of any electoral vote must be in
writing and signed by a Member and a Senator. 3 USC Sec. 15; 109-1,
Jan. 6, 2005, p 198. An objection not signed by a Senator is invalid.
107-1, Jan. 6, 2001, p 104; 115-1, Jan. 6, 2017, p__. Objections are
not debatable in the joint session. 3 U.S.C. Sec. 18; 107-1, Jan. 6,
2001, p 104; 115-1, Jan. 6, 2017, p__. In the event that a timely
objection in proper form is raised in connection with the count, the
joint session divides, and the objection is considered by each House
in separate session. Deschler Ch 10 Sec. 3.6; 109-1, Jan. 6, 2005, p
199. The Act of 1887 prescribes the procedure to be followed in debate
after the two Houses have separated. 3 USC Sec. 17. On only two
occasions (in 1969 and 2005) has an objection been perfected,
requiring the two Houses to separate and consider the objection
pursuant to the Act of 1877. 91-1, Jan. 6, 1969, p 146; 109-1, Jan. 6,
2005, p 199. In the House a motion to lay the objection on the table
is not in order. Deschler Ch 10 Sec. 3.7. In one instance the Senate
agreed by unanimous consent to modify the terms set by the statute
with respect to the division of time for debate. Deschler Ch 10
Sec. 3.8.

If either the House or the Senate rejects the objection, the
presiding officer of the joint session directs the tellers to record
the votes as submitted. Deschler Ch 10 Sec. 3.6; 109-1, Jan. 6, 2005,
p 242.

House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House - Chapter 24. Electoral Counts; Selection of President and Vice President

 

[JohnDB]

Should have done like democrats and charge the opposition with a crime...any crime will do.