January 6th Committee Urges Trump Prosecution With Four Criminal Referrals.

[Penelope]

I never seen such election deniers in my life, and they are all republicans.

 

[beagle9]

I never seen such election deniers in my life, and they are all republicans.

Best keep your eye on Kari Lake's case. It's showing the how, the why, and the results of how an election gets stolen. The best part, is that it's being done in an open court proceeding just like what Trump should have been given the opportunity to have. The leftist commie's keep figuring out ways to harass Trump, but never give him and his team their day in court.

 

[Faun]

Best keep your eye on Kari Lake's case.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not one person has implicated Trump as a co-conspirator.

Of course they have, in their

Emails
Memos
Texts
Recorded audio

Like, mountains of it.

 

[Delldude]

No need, if convicted. He will be ineligible for office.

Not so fast, hot dog......

The short answer is no. Here’s why:

The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

Congress has ‘no power to alter’​

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.
_____________________________________

But in case of insurrection …​

The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions – with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath … 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.”
______________________________________

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.
_________________________________

Running from behind bars​

Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign – even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running – and even being elected – while in prison. As early as 1798 – some 79 years before the 14th Amendment – House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

Even if Jan. 6 referrals turn into criminal charges – or convictions – Trump will still be able to run in 2024 and serve as president if elected

A House panel made four criminal referrals in relation to Donald Trump’s alleged role in the attack on the Capitol. Convictions might make him an unpalatable candidate but wouldn’t bar him from running.

theconversation.com

 

[Ame®icano]

I never seen such election deniers in my life, and they are all republicans.

After denying Trump presidency is legitimate for four years, two impeachments and going after him and his family for six years....

Let's refresh that memory hole.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not so fast, hot dog......

The short answer is no. Here’s why:

The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

Congress has ‘no power to alter’​

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.
_____________________________________

But in case of insurrection …​

The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions – with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath … 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.”
______________________________________

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.
_________________________________

Running from behind bars​

Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign – even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running – and even being elected – while in prison. As early as 1798 – some 79 years before the 14th Amendment – House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

Even if Jan. 6 referrals turn into criminal charges – or convictions – Trump will still be able to run in 2024 and serve as president if elected

A House panel made four criminal referrals in relation to Donald Trump’s alleged role in the attack on the Capitol. Convictions might make him an unpalatable candidate but wouldn’t bar him from running.

theconversation.com

That's nice.

But there are a few crimes that would prevent Trump from holding any office ever again.

Good luck on your search to understand. Hint: one of them was just referred to the DOJ

 

[Delldude]

That's nice.

But there are a few crimes that would prevent Trump from holding any office ever again.

Good luck on your search to understand. Hint: one of them was just referred to the DOJ

Already provided......if you read the entire article, you wouldn't be saying that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Already provided......if you read the entire article, you wouldn't be saying that.

Rhwn I don't need to read the article, because I already knew that. So you learned something. Great.

 

[Delldude]

Rhwn I don't need to read the article, because I already knew that. So you learned something. Great.

Well then you just got caught lying in your previous post......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well then you just got caught lying in your previous post......

False.

 

[0311]

Kari's Lake's Election Trial Bombshell Goes Pfft.

Kari Lake's bombshell goes pffft

Something was proved without a shadow of doubt in Kari Lake's trial, all right. And it should be followed up with sanctions.

www.azcentral.com

Kari Lake’s trial is over. The Big Reveal about Arizona’s election is, well …. revealed.

Turns out there was no bombshell evidence proving that some nefarious soul over at Maricopa County schemed up a plan to rob Lake of victory.

There wasn’t even a small firecracker. Not even a party popper.

There was just Lake’s attorney, clinging to a theory that somebody shrunk the ballots to cause Election Day mayhem and cost Lake the election.

“This is about trust,” Lake’s attorney Kurt Olsen said, in his closing argument. “It’s about restoring people’s trust.”


Which of course is what Lying Lake violated, the full trust and faith in the Arizona Electoral System.

For fuck sake, some here to for unknown person and/or persons shrank the fucking ballots....that was the big reveal.....Honey I Shrunk The Ballots!!!

 

[Delldude]

Kari's Lake's Election Trial Bombshell Goes Pfft.

Kari Lake's bombshell goes pffft

Something was proved without a shadow of doubt in Kari Lake's trial, all right. And it should be followed up with sanctions.

www.azcentral.com

Kari Lake’s trial is over. The Big Reveal about Arizona’s election is, well …. revealed.

Turns out there was no bombshell evidence proving that some nefarious soul over at Maricopa County schemed up a plan to rob Lake of victory.

There wasn’t even a small firecracker. Not even a party popper.

There was just Lake’s attorney, clinging to a theory that somebody shrunk the ballots to cause Election Day mayhem and cost Lake the election.

“This is about trust,” Lake’s attorney Kurt Olsen said, in his closing argument. “It’s about restoring people’s trust.”


Which of course is what Lying Lake violated, the full trust and faith in the Arizona Electoral System.

For fuck sake, some here to for unknown person and/or persons shrank the fucking ballots....that was the big reveal.....Honey I Shrunk The Ballots!!!

That's odd, I haven't seen a decision from the court.

 

[Faun]

Not so fast, hot dog......

The short answer is no. Here’s why:

The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

Congress has ‘no power to alter’​

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.
_____________________________________

But in case of insurrection …​

The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions – with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath … 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.”
______________________________________

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.
_________________________________

Running from behind bars​

Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign – even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running – and even being elected – while in prison. As early as 1798 – some 79 years before the 14th Amendment – House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

Even if Jan. 6 referrals turn into criminal charges – or convictions – Trump will still be able to run in 2024 and serve as president if elected

A House panel made four criminal referrals in relation to Donald Trump’s alleged role in the attack on the Capitol. Convictions might make him an unpalatable candidate but wouldn’t bar him from running.

theconversation.com

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

LOL

Of course it applies to the office of the presidency...

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.​

That is the most desperate stretch I've seen so far an the rebellion clause.

 

[MagicMike]

Best keep your eye on Kari Lake's case. It's showing the how, the why, and the results of how an election gets stolen. The best part, is that it's being done in an open court proceeding just like what Trump should have been given the opportunity to have. The leftist commie's keep figuring out ways to harass Trump, but never give him and his team their day in court.

I have been following Klan Queen Kari's case closely.

Just like Trump's freakish attorneys Lake's team basically wasted the court's time for two days with rabid speculation, unhinged conspiracy theories, anecdotal "testimony" from lunatics with zero credibility, and absolutely NO actual, meaningful proof/evidence of election fraud at all.

No doubt the judge will come back with a ruling against Club Lake.

So then, of course, Lake will appeal to the AZ Supreme Court.
Where she will lose again.

Then she will vow to appeal again to the SCOTUS.
And they will simply refuse to hear the stupid case.

The end.

 

[Faun]

After denying Trump presidency is legitimate for four years, two impeachments and going after him and his family for six years....

Let's refresh that memory hole.

Which of those Democrats inspired an assault on the seat of our government? Which of those Democrats tried to submit fake electors to Congress to steal the election? Which of those Democrats pressured the president of the Senate to unilaterally declare them the winner of the election they lost? Which of those Democrats expressed an interest in "terminating" any parts of the Constitution which would allow for their lost election to be thrown out and either re-done or have them be declared the winner? Which of those Democrats inspired some 2/3rd of their party to believe their lies that their election was stolen from them? Which of those Democrats repeated lie after lie after lie about election fraud? Which of those Democrats lost 60+ cases in court, in a desperate attempt to flip the election they lost? Which of those Democrats setup a legal defense fund to scam people to collect hundreds of millions of dollars?

 

[Delldude]

Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

LOL

Of course it applies to the office of the presidency...

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.​

That is the most desperate stretch I've seen so far an the rebellion clause.

And probably the most far reaching of lunatic leftists hopes and dreams.

 

[Blaster]

Everybody knows this is just about politics.

 

[MagicMike]

Everybody knows this is just about politics.

Everything is just about politics.

 

[Blaster]

Everything is just about politics.

That's the problem.