Forget the Trump trials. He might already be ineligible for 2024.

[Rogue AI]

In case you all haven’t figured it out, they don’t need “insurrection”, they just need something to prove “rebellion”, which, can likely be broadly defined enough that they can find something…out of the 91?..charges that they can deem to be rebellion.

That’s what they are going for.

They would need a conviction for insurrection on Trump. Anything less is just pure fantasy. Nobody can be barred from running for president based on allegations.

 

[Rambunctious]

Are you triggered?

Not in the least you fucking asshole POS un American bastard....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's worth a pisshole in the snow.

It's from your very own democrat cult media

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not in the least you fucking asshole POS un American bastard....

He either doesn't realize he supports shitting on the constitution or just doesn't give a fuck

 

[Billiejeens]

No...trust me on this..

You're just stupid.

I certainly don't trust you.

 

[Billiejeens]

No...Joe Biden won both the popular vote AND ec...

Check your constitution.

There is no popular vote.

 

[Michael1985]

It just got real...

But there’s a serious argument that, separate from any criminal charges, Trump is constitutionally disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. And if the Constitution bars him from the presidency, then he’s not entitled to be on the ballot, and it becomes the job of state election officials to keep him off.

Two prominent conservative scholars have added their voices — and, more important, their extensive analysis of the relevant historical record — in support of this argument. They conclude that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to prohibit former federal officeholders who joined the Confederacy from holding office again, applies broadly to any “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States and not solely to the South’s secession from the Union.....

These scholars explain in a forthcoming law review article that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection within the meaning of this clause and, crucially, that Trump engaged in this insurrection within the clause’s meaning, by both fomenting it and failing to exercise his presidential powers to stop it once it was underway. Refuting the view that the president is not an “officer” to whom this provision applies, these scholars cogently note that John Tyler was a former president and John Breckinridge a former vice president who both joined the Confederacy, and surely the framers of the 14th Amendment intended its disqualification from future office to apply to the likes of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-14th-amendment-unconstitutional-presidency/

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.


The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

This is the Federalist Society - the litmus test of any GOP nominee for a judgeship or leadership of the DoJ. They have provided Trump with the list of names from which someone helps him find a nominee.

Check any conservative federal judges bio of the past 25 years, and they will be members.

This is a very public split....it appears as if the Society is reapplying for admission into Civil Society by establishing a distance between themselves and the zombie cult that the GOP has become.

I'm anything but a legal scholar, but I read that particular clause as a violent insurrection that seeks to completely overthrow the government. I don't believe that's what happened on January 6. So, no, as much as I can't stand him, I don't consider him ineligible to run again.

 

[Faun]

The state of Georgia can not jail a sitting president.... and the federal charge is in a real court with an unbiased judge so it won't go anywhere....

Oh? What law prevents Georgia from incarcerating a sitting president, rambtard?

 

[Rambunctious]

Oh? What law prevents Georgia from incarcerating a sitting president, rambtard?

No law but the state officials would be voted out... it just will not happen.... the sides are too close in numbers... and the Georgia Democrats would be out of power for a long time....

 

[Crepitus]

No it's not liar the constitution doesn't allow a banana republic
And Jo Biden and the democrat cult is shitting on the constitution

Doubling down does not make your lies more true.

 

[Crepitus]

...

You didn't read the OP?

 

[Faun]

A legal theory suggests that 45th President Donald Trump cannot be convicted of many of the charges against him, particularly those related to his claims about the 2020 election, because he was not first impeached by Congress and convicted in the Senate in his position as President of the United States.

The legal theory, published by the National Constitutional Law Union (NCLU), cites recent court decisions to assert that the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs and Bruen decisions allow for Trump and his lawyers to argue that all actions a president takes while in office must be considered legal unless the chief executive is successfully impeached.

Sounds like utter nonsense since impeachment is a political process, doesn't have to be over committing a crime, and doesn't impose any legal liabilities whatsoever in the event a crime was committed.

 

[Faun]

Poor fawny
He didn't

Sure he did. He sat on his thumbs for hours, derelict of duty, which enabled them to ransack the Capitol. That aided their efforts.

He told them we love them and they're special. That comforted their efforts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They would need a conviction for insurrection on Trump. Anything less is just pure fantasy. Nobody can be barred from running for president based on allegations.

Nope, it says one has to engage in insurrection OR rebellion. Rebellion is a broad term. Out of the 91 or whatever allegations, in the 4 indictments, they just need 1 to get to “rebellion”. It’s why they have so many allegations. They are throwing everything at the wall, they don’t need it all to stick, just a couple.

 

[Faun]

Go peacefully and patriotically to have your voices heard

And how could members of Congress, inside the Capitol, hear the voices of Trump's thugs, outside the Capitol?

 

[Faun]

No law but the state officials would be voted out... it just will not happen.... the sides are too close in numbers... and the Georgia Democrats would be out of power for a long time....

Oh, rambtard? Which state officials do you imagine would be responsible for locking him up?

 

[Billiejeens]

Sure he did. He sat on his thumbs for hours, derelict of duty, which enabled them to ransack the Capitol. That aided their efforts.

He told them we love them and they're special. That comforted their efforts.

Nope

 

[lennypartiv]

The requirements to be president are being a natural born US citizen of at least 35 years of age. That's it.

 

[Faun]

Nope

 

[toobfreak]

Trump is constitutionally disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Sorry Assquack, there was no role nor any insurrection, but I love how you idiots stroke yourselves making crap up for each other.