Let's make something clear.

[MagicMike]

TBD by the US Supreme Court, Simp.

There ya go.

 

[MagicMike]

You use a lot of words to say nothing. Nothing intelligent and nothing of value.

And don’t kid yourself. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you utterly fail to support you claims in any way.

Your always pathetic attempts at ad hominem are fails in themselves and clearly don’t add anything to your contentions.

Take two Midol and go to your gynecologist as quickly as you can.

Still waiting on that PROOF of the charges for the crimes you claimed Biden is already guilty of intheButtAgain.

Crickets......

 

[Rawley]

Because that particular charge is very hard to prove. Intent has to be proven.

Seemed pretty simple for CO and ME

Anymore dumb questions?

Nah. As expected you offer nothing more than an insipid answer as you did above. Why waste my time.

 

[Nostra]

There ya go.

Can't wait for your butthurt.

 

[MagicMike]

Can't wait for your butthurt.

Why don't you hold your breath?

 

[BackAgain]

Still waiting on that PROOF of the charges for the crimes you claimed Biden is already guilty of intheButtAgain.

Crickets......

You are beyond stupid MuddledDick.

We know that Potato had classified documents. This isn’t even disputed. We also know he wasn’t entitled to have them. Of that there is no question. We also know where he kept many of them. This is also not in doubt. The location was not secure. This is also undisputed.

Bottom line? He had committed several crimes.

And that’s before we even assess his massive wealth and his activities with Hunter regarding Ukraine.

Stick your head back in the sand or back up your ass. It doesn’t matter. You’ll be safe from having to see reality either way.

 

[Nostra]

Why don't you hold your breath?

Why would I do that?

Seems to me you HAVE done that....................for hours at a time, given the lack of brain activity you display on this board.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If so, a state, or a court, can use whatever method it chooses to determine if someone violated the 14th and remove pretty much anyone from a ballot.

 

[MagicMike]

You are beyond stupid MuddledDick.

We know that Potato had classified documents. This isn’t even disputed. We also know he wasn’t entitled to have them. Of that there is no question. We also know where he kept many of them. This is also not in doubt. The location was not secure. This is also undisputed.

Bottom line? He had committed several crimes.

And that’s before we even assess his massive wealth and his activities with Hunter regarding Ukraine.

Stick your head back in the sand or back up your ass. It doesn’t matter. You’ll be safe from having to see reality either way.

Still waiting for a link to those formal charges intheButtAgain.
Remember....in your own words.
"Innocent until proven guilty."

More crickets.....

 

[berg80]

So the Democrats are simply being patriotic by trying to disenfranchise half of the voter in the US?

Clearly you feel the need to spin doctor a fairly straight forward matter. Trump's actions violated the law and the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution when he plotted to illegally remain in power. Now, in keeping with the 14th A, states have.........and the SCOTUS eventually will........adjudicate the matter of his ballot disqualification.
If Trump's actions result in him being kept off the ballot he, and you, have no one to blame but him.

 

[berg80]

Bottom line? He had committed several crimes.

Incorrect, since intent is the guiding legal principle in this matter.

 

[BackAgain]

Still waiting for a link to those formal charges intheButtAgain.
Remember....in your own words.
"Innocent until proven guilty."

More crickets.....

Hey dipshit:

Because he wasn’t charged, you imbecile, you will never see the formal charges.

I’m afraid your imbecility can’t be overcome, MuddledDick.

And the phrase “innocent until proved guilty” aren’t “my” words you ignorant tool. It is a precept of our system of justice. But what it means is “innocent in the eyes of the law until and unless proved guilty in a court of law.”

If Potato possessed classified documents which he wasn’t legally allowed to possess, he was actually guilty of that crime regardless of whether his guilt “in the eyes of the law” was ever proved.

 

[MagicMike]

Hey dipshit:

Because he wasn’t charged, you imbecile, you will never see the formal charges.

I’m afraid your imbecility can’t be overcome, MuddledDick.

And the phrase “innocent until proved guilty” aren’t “my” words you ignorant tool. It is a precept of our system of justice. But what it means is “innocent in the eyes of the law until and unless proved guilty in a court of law.”

If Potato possessed classified documents which he wasn’t legally allowed to possess, he was actually guilty of that crime regardless of whether his guilt “in the eyes of the law” was ever proved.

You mean like Trump's guilt as an insurrectionist?

 

[BackAgain]

Incorrect, since intent is the guiding legal principle in this matter.

Wrong. You are incorrect because he had them stored in his fucking private residence garage. And intent is not the guiding legal principle. Knowing possession is.

You’re just making shit up at this point, bug.

There a however also an intent element.

But he would be hard pressed to deny that he intended to retain them since he shouldn’t have them at all and since he was storing them in his garage.

 

[MagicMike]

So the Democrats are simply being patriotic by trying to disenfranchise half of the voter in the US?

Remember when Trump tried to stage a coup and steal an election by disenfranching 81,283,098 Biden voters?
Funny that your ilk was just fine with that huh?
So why the double standard?
Short memory maybe?

 

[BackAgain]

You mean like Trump's guilt as an insurrectionist?

You’re entitled to believe it.

But your belief is groundless.

There was no insurrection. See how this works yet, you dipshit? For anyone to be guilty of any crime, first there had to have been a crime.

 

[Rawley]

Clearly you feel the need to spin doctor a fairly straight forward matter. Trump's actions violated the law

What law? There's only one Federal insurrection law.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

And MagicMike tesll us that's really really hard to prove, which is why out of 3,000 charges, Biden's DOJ didn't charge a single person with insurrection.

 

[Rawley]

Remember when Trump tried to stage a coup and steal an election by disenfranching 81,283,098 Biden voters?

Nope Didn't happen,

Funny that your ilk was just fine with that huh?
So why the double standard?
Short memory maybe?

Your rank partisanship cloud both your memory and your reasoning.

 

[berg80]

Wrong. You are incorrect because he had them stored in his fucking private residence garage. And intent is not the guiding legal principle. Knowing possession is.

Do you know for a fact that he either packed them himself and placed them in his garage or directed his staff to do so? You know, like Trump did with the MAL docs. The ones he knowingly concealed from the DoJ after being issued a subpoena to return them.

 

[berg80]

Nope Didn't happen,

I agree, abject denial is the best course of action for members of The Following. Cuz once you admit to yourself it actually did happen the entire house of cards falls.