After 9-0 SCOTUS rejection, Democrats devise Putinesque new plan to keep Trump off the ballot

[Rawley]

Whatever they cook up is bound is to be entertaining.

Where's Jerry Nadler? No Dem dream team is complete without that loon, lol.

Nadler seems to have dropped off the map. Thank Goodness

 

[justoffal]

Nadler seems to have dropped off the map. Thank Goodness

Not a healthy man

 

[Marener]

What exactly is Raskin proposing? Have you seen it? I haven't.

“In any event, the Supreme Court punted and said it’s up to Congress to act,” the Maryland representative continued. “And so I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Okay, lol. Not sure whatsername shultz and swillwell are the best legal minds available, but hey, it's cool.

There is already a process to disqualify someone who has committed insurrection.
1. Charge them with insurrection
2. Get a verdict of guilty.
3. Voila!

Raskin is proposing a different process. I haven't seen the legislation, maybe you just need to be patient.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Marener]

Yes, your pretentious condescension is noted. A really bad habit of yours. Makes you look small and insecure in your argument.

Raskin can obviously write whatever he thinks will rile up his cult. However, no further legislation is required. You even quoted the court.
"Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders." Note the past tense. They've already done it.

Just pointing out the facts to you. Sorry that makes you feel bad.

Whether it's already "been done" is irrelevant. Congress is empowered to change that legislation at any time. They already did since the relevant portion of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed in 1948.

 

[justoffal]

Raskin is proposing a different process. I haven't seen the legislation, maybe you just need to be patient.

Nah... they're actually just licking their own assholes for lack of TP....keeps their minds off of disappointment.

 

[para bellum]

Nadler seems to have dropped off the map. Thank Goodness

He's like a bad penny. At the moment he's trying to throw a former US Attorney under the bus.

 

[justoffal]

View attachment 912905

YAWWWWWN....

 

[Marener]

Nah... they're actually just licking their own assholes for lack of TP....keeps their minds off of disappointment.

Do you need to be so revolting?

 

[Marener]

Out of all those “fake electors“ how many votes did they cast altogether?

What? Zero, you say?

Depends on what you mean by "cast", because if you look at the fake elector certificates, they claimed to have cast votes for Trump. If you mean votes cast and counted, that's never been the standard for fraud.

So what do you think the charge is going to be? Attempted fake elector voting? What’s the statute on that, please?

I will it be the same thing that John Kennedy was charged with when he did the same thing in 1960 with Hawaii?

The charges are fraud. 18 USC 371

Kennedy didn't do anything of the sort in 1960.

 

[Dragonlady]

hahahah this is hiliarous

What's hilarious is that you reject such a notion out of hand, but that what always who was doing this.

Democrats don't want the loser off the ballot. There is nobody easier to beat than Trump, as Democrats have proven over and over again.

Added to which Trump has succeeded in bankrupting the entire GOP, forcing them to fund his ridiculous laws suits claiming he won the 2020 election. Now he's forced Rona McDaniel out because she refuses to pay his legal bills. Now ALL of the RNC's donations will be funelled to pay Trump's legal bills, leaving nothing for Republicans candidates to run on.

To democrats not voting democrat is reason enough to stop the vote.

Democrats don’t have to do anything to win, elections other than to put their platform out there and wait for people to vote for it.

 

[para bellum]

Raskin is proposing a different process. I haven't seen the legislation, maybe you just need to be patient.

Oh, well you said he was proposing legislation consistent with Constitutional principles.

I thought maybe you had an idea wrt the plan to remedy a 9-0 SCOTUS decision.

I read that decision, and I didn't see anything that identified any need for new legislation. The court identified the statute that the Congress passed to address the question of disqualification under the 14th amendment- 18 USC 2383. They didn't describe any defects in that statute, so...

 

[Seymour Flops]

Raskin is proposing a different process. I haven't seen the legislation, maybe you just need to be patient.

Isn't time running out?

Trump will be president in less than eleven months, if Raskin doesn't get his plan going soon.

Depends on what you mean by "cast", because if you look at the fake elector certificates, they claimed to have cast votes for Trump. If you mean votes cast and counted, that's never been the standard for fraud.

The charges are fraud. 18 USC 371

Kennedy didn't do anything of the sort in 1960.

The eternal question: Is it worth it to debate the willfully ignorant?

It's good for laughs, I suppose.

See the 1960 Electoral College certificates that the false Trump electors say justify their gambit

Their explanation relied heavily on the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, who was vice president at the time.

www.politico.com

By December 1960, it was clear Kennedy had won. Only Hawaii’s result remained in doubt. Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes, according to the initial results, which were certified by the governor. A recount was underway on Dec. 19, 1960, when presidential electors across the nation were required by law to meet and cast their ballots.


Nixon’s Hawaii electors met and cast their three votes in an official ceremony. But nearby, Kennedy’s three elector nominees gathered and signed their own certificates, delivering them to Washington as though Kennedy had won the state.

 

[Rawley]

Just pointing out the facts to you. Sorry that makes you feel bad.

LOL Fact is that nothing of Congress is required after yesterday's decision. Contrary to your misinformation

Whether it's already "been done" is irrelevant. Congress is empowered to change that legislation at any time. They already did since the relevant portion of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed in 1948.

I'll accept your concession

 

[Stann]

It doesn't sound like the DemoKKKrats are very confident in Poor Memory's ability to win this one without a whole lot of election interference...LOL

The Supreme Court made the correct decision for now. Allegations of treason cannot stop trump from running. When he has his day in court and is found guilty everything changes . He will be OUT of the race and in prison.

 

[JusticeHammer]

We don't do that? The CIA assassinated JFK.

How many did the Clinton's have assassinated?

 

[WEATHER53]

The Supreme Court made the correct decision for now. Allegations of treason cannot stop trump from running. When he has his day in court and is found guilty everything changes . He will be OUT of the race and in prison.

And if USSC had seen merit in the allegations then the outcome would have been different

 

[Nostra]

View attachment 912905

The Constitution “turned it over to Congress” in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, you raving lunatic.

Holy shit you are stupid.

 

[BluesLegend]

View attachment 912905

Is this a satire post mocking Democrats??

 

[Stann]

And if USSC had seen merit in the allegations then the outcome would have been different

No , cannot disallow just because of allegations. Once convicted that will change everything. Then if involved they have to disallow. Treason conviction endsit all for trump. Trump might appeal it from prison but it won't go anywhere.