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

[Orangecat]

Do you really want to question my hetero credentials, pussycat?

 

[Orangecat]

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

Ears.

 

[MagicMike]

Because this witch hunt keeps getting crazier and crazier... I can't believe this is happening in my country....

Yet it is easy for you to believe a Donald Trump happened in your country?

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

It would require a conviction not mere accusations.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It would require a conviction not mere accusations.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

What I’m saying is, if they can get one of these 9x from the 4 indictments to stick, they will argue that trump engaged in rebellion, and because you can define rebellion in very broad terms, they are going for that angle. My point being, they don’t need insurrection when rebellion is MUCH easier to use.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Rogue AI]

What I’m saying is, if they can get one of these 9x from the 4 indictments to stick, they will argue that trump engaged in rebellion, and because you can define rebellion in very broad terms, they are going for that angle. My point being, they don’t need insurrection when rebellion is MUCH easier to use.

They can say whatever they want, without a charge of insurrection or rebellion it just more gibberish.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Your scrawny wings can't swing a bat.
You still screwing the trannies?

I'm I your screen saver?

 

[toobfreak]

I wonder if it is just a coincidence that all of these "indictments" are all being filed by black screwball crackpot AGs with highly questionable backgrounds?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Not even the tiniest of deals. Their theory is absurd.

cRawley,

It will surely invite comment when released.
I look forward to your curt dismissal.

 

[The5thHorseman]

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

Not much....

 

[The5thHorseman]

There is no popular vote.

Walk the walk.

Deny Gravity...

 

[The5thHorseman]

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


View attachment 815343View attachment 815344 View attachment 815345 View attachment 815346 View attachment 815347

How much of the Jan 6th Hearings did you watch?

 

[The5thHorseman]

That's better.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They can say whatever they want, without a charge of insurrection or rebellion it just more gibberish.

They don’t need a “charge of rebellion”, they just need to prove that he engaged in rebellion. Say, for example, they can get one of the J6 charges of trying to overturn the election to stick and get a conviction on it, they will argue that THAT is a rebellion against the United States, and say he is disqualified. Or, perhaps if Georgia can get a Rico violation to stick, and get a conviction, they will say that is also rebellion.

I’d be a little concerned about Georgia, by the way, I was reading that it is easier to get a conviction for Rico in Georgia than it is in federal court, and I’m also seeing that since Rico is a state crime, it can’t be pardoned by any president and I also heard today that it requires a minimum 5 year prison sentence, and cannot be appealed to the states pardon board until after 5 years have passed (not sure that is true, just heard it on the radio today). But if it is true, and they can get 2 of the 161 acts to stick, they can charge him under the Rico act and send him to prison.

All I’m saying is, this one may be the one, because of how many they have thrown at him, and that it’s easier to convict in Georgia.

 

[toobfreak]

How much of the Jan 6th Hearings did you watch?

All the parts where they withheld exculpatory information while promoting false, fake and altered information.

 

[The5thHorseman]

All the parts where they withheld exculpatory information while promoting false, fake and altered information.

Both Grifty and Meadows were invited to provide this exculpatory information, under oath.

 

[Faun]

Ears.

Ears couldn't hear that. It was on video, in the chambers, when the mob was surrounding the Capitol and yelling. Nothing from outdide was heard inside the chambers.

 

[Rambunctious]

Not much....

This is why your dream will not be fulfilled.... watch this....

 

[Rambunctious]