Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also the insurrection law was a law. And provides for a fine up to $10,000CNN had an old fart lawyer who said that he and Larry Tribe are absolutely convinced that the CO ruling to disqualify Trump is 100% correct and unassailable legally.
Then on FNC I saw Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz say that the USSC will overturn it 9-0.
I'd bet on Turley and Dershowitz.
They said that Roberts needs to tailor the decision to get a 9-0 decision to avoid any political blow-back.
Something like obvious due process violations.
/——/ Twitter took down this video. Why?The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything at all about a person needing to be convicted of anything. They found that the President engaged in insurrection and that this bars him from holding office under section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They wrote a ruling over a hundred and twenty pages long defending that ruling. As I said, feel free to be a bitch about it.
/——/ Twitter took this video down. Why?Well… zero proof that you cared to look at anyway.
This is the result of you dopes ignoring reality and choosing to believe your own bullshit memes instead.
It’s time to pay attention for real now.
/—-/ I guess they ignored this video, so will you.Their own judgement. That is the job. Feel free to cry about it.
Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.Everyone has the right to run for president. unless they don't meet the stipulations like age, etc. listed in the Constitution.
Your argument is nonsense. For example, which natural born citizens at least 35 years old can't run for president?
ANS: no one is barred from running
/—-/ I guess they ignored this video, so will you.
Jesus you clowns are such failures.
Unfortunately insurrectionists don’t meet the requirementsYour argument is still nonsense. Anyone and everyone can run for president as long as they meet the requirements.
Well, Jack Smith is so confused about this he has gone to the Supreme Court to get their decision.Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
It was a civil trial, dupe.It wasn’t a trial, you absolutely retarded lying shitstain.
God damn but you’re a moron.
Huh?Well, Jack Smith is so confused about this he has gone to the Supreme Court to get their decision.
No, you dishonest retard. It wasn’t. It was a pre-trial hearing. Hearings aren’t trials, you ignorant moron.It was a civil trial, dupe.
Unless you were denied "due process" then you can, or unless it was a riot or a protest, then you can.Yes, stipulations like not having engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
Agreed. However Trump was not an insurrectionist, so there is that.Unfortunately insurrectionists don’t meet the requirements
Hmm… or maybe you’re just too partisan to be objective in any way?Anyone on the SCOTUS bench who approves of the Colorado ruling should be admonished and dismissed as a partisan.
Huh?
What do you win with your reaction score?bodecea Would you please post a laugh on all of my posts? It helps my reaction score, which is the only reason I post.
TIA
And not a single one of them for "insurrection" Odd that, huh?
Do you think the drafters of the 14th were trying to save on ink? Why didn't they specifically enumerate "President and Vice-President" in section 3 if they intended to include them? They did list "President and Vice-President" in section 2
He has been adjudicated as being such. All of your “nuh uhs“ or “nopes “ combined will not change that fact.Agreed. However Trump was not an insurrectionist, so there is that.
Umm… I know what smith has petitioned but what does that have to do with the CO ruling?Loading…
www.cnn.com
