Let's make something clear.

[SeaMajor7]

I've already explained it to you.

You've explained NOTHING but LIES and GASLIGHTING, you wretched POS!!!

 

[the watcher]

I don't think this stuff is a good idea, but it's pretty clear the Trumpsters don't understand the rule or how it's being applied.

The crucial jump here that was made by a political faction was to label a speech as instigating an insurrection was what gave this whole crap a thin coating of questionable authenticity. Without that slim shady tactic the whole thing was just another street riot, of which we've seen hundreds for whatever reasons lately. I think people have a very good understanding of what is going on and how it's being applied. This is what iron curtain despots do to maintain power, destroy the truth, eliminate their opponents, and maintain their control over the population. Could not someone label facilitating illegal immigration and drug smuggling as treason if they were so inclined? Who is to stop them according to your views? No one.

one.

 

[Marener]

And weve alteady shown you are full of BS

You talked in circles without saying anything.

The 14th amendment does not require a conviction. Neither does the Bill of Rights. Trump had a trial. He was not criminally convicted. The court held he engaged in insurrection and not eligible for office.

The end.

 

[Concerned American]

That's the basis for his claims of immunity in his prosecution.

Trump's lawyers ask appeals court to rule on immunity in late-night filing

Donald Trump's lawyers are telling a federal appeals court that he was acting within his role as president when he pressed claims about "alleged fraud and irregularity" in the 2020 election.

www.cbsnews.com

Only in your twisted little partisan mind.

 

[Marener]

Only in your twisted little partisan mind.

No, it's there in black and white. To claim immunity, it means he was using his office to engage in the activity he is being held criminally liable for.

That's literally what it means. Otherwise he can't claim immunity.

 

[Concerned American]

And weve alteady shown you are full of BS

Let's throw Marener in prison for (fill in the blank). The constitution doesn't require a conviction.

 

[eagle1462010]

Let's throw Marener in prison for (fill in the blank). The constitution doesn't require a conviction.

They seem that is fine. Why not?

Hell they have been doing this for years.

 

[Concerned American]

No, it's there in black and white. To claim immunity, it means he was using his office to engage in the activity he is being held criminally liable for.

That's literally what it means. Otherwise he can't claim immunity.

It is the duty of ANY elected official to root out suspected fraud. But I forgot, you're the one who says there is no requirement for a person to be charged and convicted of a crime in the constitution. You're an idiot.

 

[Marener]

Let's throw Marener in prison for (fill in the blank). The constitution doesn't require a conviction.

Was Trump thrown in prison without a conviction?

No.

Then what the hell does this even mean?

 

[Marener]

It is the duty of ANY elected official to root out suspected fraud. But I forgot, you're the one who says there is no requirement for a person to be charged and convicted of a crime in the constitution. You're an idiot.

Trump is not in charge of elections. Especially not his own.

Can you show me where the people accused of election fraud were convicted of that crime?

 

[Concerned American]

Was Trump thrown in prison without a conviction?

No.

Then what the hell does this even mean?

According to you, the 14th A doesn't require a conviction of the CRIME of insurrection. Damn, you don't even require a charge to be filed. Thank you for making that clear, comrade.

 

[Marener]

According to you, the 14th A doesn't require a conviction of the CRIME of insurrection. Damn, you don't even require a charge to be filed. Thank you for making that clear, comrade.

It doesn't require a conviction of the crime of insurrection to disqualify someone from holding office.

It has nothing to do with putting anyone in jail.

 

[eagle1462010]

Stand and Salute your Anthem Marener.

 

[Concerned American]

Trump is not in charge of elections. Especially not his own.

Can you show me where the people accused of election fraud were convicted of that crime?

Apparently in four other cases that are documented by the Smithsonian, you are WRONG AGAIN.

Four Times the Results of a Presidential Election Were Contested

"Rigged" may not be the way to describe them, but there were definitely some shenanigans happening

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Concerned American]

It doesn't require a conviction of the crime of insurrection to disqualify someone from holding office.

It has nothing to do with putting anyone in jail.

There is NOTHING in the 14th that specifies the office of the presidency. Split that hair, moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

ty

 

[Marener]

Apparently in four other cases that are documented by the Smithsonian, you are WRONG AGAIN.

Four Times the Results of a Presidential Election Were Contested

"Rigged" may not be the way to describe them, but there were definitely some shenanigans happening

www.smithsonianmag.com

Please explain why you think this link shows I’m wrong.

 

[sparky]

Hell they have been doing this for years.

yes, as well as apologizing for it .... Japanese, Italian and Germans American citizens , for simply being born of said race....no 'conviction' required.....~S~

 

[noonereal]

Maybe you should pay attention to what you post. YOU said in YOUR post #357 and I quote,
"The poor pay the most tax." My post and links speak directly to that statement. It is FALSE and you know it. You cannot accept that you have been shown, as most leftists do, that you are a bald faced liar. I'm sorry if this upsets you but that is not my problem.

Ok, let me rephrase my statement as its obviousness escaped you.
The poor pay more tax as a percent of their monies than do any other group.

 

[Foxfyre]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...eports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary. Reconstruction Era federal prosecutors brought civil actions in court to oust officials linked to the Confederacy, and Congress in some cases took action to refuse to seat Members. Congress last used Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1919 to refuse to seat a socialist Congressman accused of having given aid and comfort to Germany during the First World War, irrespective of the Amnesty Act. The Congressman, Victor Berger, was eventually seated at a subsequent Congress after the Supreme Court threw out his espionage conviction for judicial bias. Recently, various groups and organizations have challenged the eligibility of certain candidates running for Congress, arguing that the candidates’ alleged involvement in the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol render them ineligible for office. No challenges have to date resulted in the disqualification of any congressional candidate. A New Mexico state court, however, has removed Otero County Commissioner County Griffin from office and prohibited him from seeking or holding any future office based on his participation in, and preparation for, the January 6 interruption of the election certification.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

Absent evidence in contradiction of CREW's assertion I suspect Trumpleton's will ineffectually attack CREW and or the CRS. It is the Trumpian way. When facts and evidence fail them they rely on what amounts to character assassination. Which is why Trump attacks the media, anyone who opposes him, and most especially those like Jack Smith who are working to hold Don accountable for his illegal actions.

Furthermore, quite a bit has been made about the removal of a candidate's name from the ballot being anti-democratic. Yet the Constitution itself tells us that it is the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under the 14th Amendment that is anti-democratic. From the moment Trump began the anti-democratic act of conspiring to steal the election he violated his oath of office and forfeited his right to once again run to be the prez.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are quite clear that every U.S. citizen is entitled to due process UNDER THE LAW before he/she can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. That would certainly apply to those holding or aspiring to public office.