the 14th Amendment case to bar Trump is much stronger than you think!

Lightbringer said:
The Secretary of State in Michigan said, to the Detroit News, that the election laws were not followed in 2020. That's all I need to hear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the letter of the law was not followed. Notice they never indicated fraud occurred, did they?

Now, let’s get back to election fraud.

How many counts, recounts, audits and investigations do you need.
 
domer76 said:
Yeah, the letter of the law was not followed. Notice they never indicated fraud occurred, did they?

Now, let’s get back to election fraud.

How many counts, recounts, audits and investigations do you need.
Click to expand...

True, it wasn't. The election in Michigan is invalid.
 
domer76 said:
Wrong again, shitstain. No court ruled as such. No evidence of ANY voter fraud.
Click to expand...

The SoS in Michigan said the law wasn't followed. The election is invalid no matter how much you want your cheating to stick. Your opinion doesn't matter on this anyway. Fuck off.
 
Lightbringer said:
The SoS in Michigan said the law wasn't followed. The election is invalid no matter how much you want your cheating to stick. Your opinion doesn't matter on this anyway. Fuck off.
Click to expand...

Try this, bitch.

Write the SOS or the Michigan Supreme Court with your opinion. I’m sure they’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.

Meanwhile, all their fake electors have been brought up on felony charges, haven’t they?
 
domer76 said:
Try this, bitch.

Write the SOS or the Michigan Supreme Court with your opinion. I’m sure they’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.

Meanwhile, all their fake electors have been brought up on felony charges, haven’t they?
Click to expand...

Or...guns work better.

You do not understand the world you live in. I've always said you're an idiot.
 
Lightbringer said:
Or...guns work better.

You do not understand the world you live in. I've always said you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

So, let’s recap.

The claims you make have not be upheld by ANY court in Michigan.

Any and all claims of voter fraud were even investigated by Republicans in your own legislature and found NOTHING.

Just as I have claimed.

That brings us to the obvious. One of us doesn’t understand the situation. That would be you, Mr. Oblivious.
 
domer76 said:
So, let’s recap.

The claims you make have not be upheld by ANY court in Michigan.

Any and all claims of voter fraud were even investigated by Republicans in your own legislature and found NOTHING.

Just as I have claimed.

That brings us to the obvious. One of us doesn’t understand the situation. That would be you, Mr. Oblivious.
Click to expand...

The SoS said...to the Detroit News...the election laws were not followed. Game over. Fuck you. I'm not playing the game you're playing anymore.

I don't know what else I have to say to make you understand that I no longer want to get along with people like you, I don't give a fuck about your opinion.. Fuck off and die. You wanted war...you got it.
 
Lightbringer said:
The SoS said...to the Detroit News...the election laws were not followed. Game over. Fuck you. I'm not playing the game you're playing anymore.

I don't know what else I have to say to make you understand that I no longer want to get along with people like you, I don't give a fuck about your opinion.. Fuck off and die. You wanted war...you got it.
Click to expand...

Tell us, shitstain, EXACTLY what rules were not followed. Just so we’re clear on how that invalidated the election.

I can see why you don’t want to continue. Your ass got handed to you on every topic. Including fuel prices.

I wanted war and got it? LOL What the fuck are you going to do, Rufus? Nuke me?
 
domer76 said:
Tell us, shitstain, EXACTLY what rules were not followed. Just so we’re clear on how that invalidated the election.

I can see why you don’t want to continue. Your ass got handed to you on every topic. Including fuel prices.

I wanted war and got it? LOL What the fuck are you going to do, Rufus? Nuke me?
Click to expand...

He can't tell you because he hasn't a fucking idea of what he's talking about. The Michigan Secretary of State actually brought a successful action against fake Trump electors in that state.

The bottom line in any Presidential election is certification of electoral votes. When that happens all existing claims of illegality are wiped away and the election becomes Constitutionally settled. The member's whining, all this Trump whining, is reflective of historical ignorance. Every Presidential election has claims of wrongdoing, and there are months for sorting them out before the election is fully certified, and when it is certified it is over, legally valid whether you like it or not. Ask Al Gore.

Democracy is messy and beautiful.
 
martin said:
He can't tell you because he hasn't a fucking idea of what he's talking about. The Michigan Secretary of State actually brought a successful action against fake Trump electors in that state.

The bottom line in any Presidential election is certification of electoral votes. When that happens all existing claims of illegality are wiped away and the election becomes Constitutionally settled. The member's whining, all this Trump whining, is reflective of historical ignorance. Every Presidential election has claims of wrongdoing, and there are months for sorting them out before the election is fully certified, and when it is certified it is over, legally valid whether you like it or not. Ask Al Gore.

Democracy is messy and beautiful.
Click to expand...

Hard to know what he’s referring to. The worst offense I can find in Michigan, other than those fake electors, was that unsolicited mail in ballots were sent to some people. BFD
 
ptif219 said:
It would take a court to prove guilt. Accusations are not proof
Click to expand...

and yet the examples given in the article of the 14th Amendment being used successful in history did not require a court ruling.

Just like with Impeachment, where a legal verdict is not needed and the accusations and a decision via a vote is enough, the 14th Amendment was also FRAMED to be a political punishment and that is clear.

The question the SC would answer is what POLITICAL mechanisms are sufficient for it to be triggered a Secretary of State.

Both the Senate Head and the House Head, cited Trump with responsible for the Insurrection, so is that enough in a political arena? If not what would be? What could be a higher standard in the political arena?
 
Lightbringer said:
The SoS in Michigan said the law wasn't followed. The election is invalid no matter how much you want your cheating to stick. Your opinion doesn't matter on this anyway. Fuck off.
Click to expand...

That is not how it works shitstain.

It is YOUR opinion that the election is invalid that does not matter and that is FACT. Proven by the FAT the election was valid and the results DID count.
 
QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)







the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.


I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
Click to expand...


"-Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame."

I missed when Trump had McConnell and McCarthy say there was an insurrection and trump was responsible for it. I'm not saying Trump didn't tell them to say that just that I missed it.
 
QP! said:
Previously I argued this was very unlikely, not because the 14th Amendment does not lay out grounds for disqualification, Trump met, but because i assumed, the SC would require a criminal conviction on insurrection to be the bar for enacting it. To ensure partisan actors in the future could not just use this to block anyone from running they did not like.

Both History and current cases of using this Amendment demonstrate factually that actions can and have been taken without any criminal prosecution for insurrection by the party barred from running.

So i do not think the SC will simply read in a new requirement (thus amending the Constitution by judicial fiat) a new requirement of legal conviction when the founders of that article clearly did not intend that and instead they SC will have to decide what will suffice. And in the terms of what has sufficed for prior people barred from running who were not convicted the case against Trump is far stronger and worse for him.

- Trump had the head of the Senate (republican Mitch McConnell, and the head of the HOuse, Kevin McCarthy) BOTH state an insurrection took place and that Trump had responsible for it and was to blame. This is arguably the strongest non legal government rebuke one could get. So again, if you accept a legal finding (court conviction) is not need, then this is just about the highest bar you can otherwise get.

- In two of Trump's current prosecutions it is alleged Trump tried to overthrow the results of an election (meaning if they let him run and he wins but the conviction follows he would have to be removed via the Constitution)







the challenge the SC will have as avowed Originalists, is that they cannot simply read in a new requirement for 'legal conviction' that the Framers never intended and that has not been required in the past for such removals or disqualifications. And that instead leaves the SC to determine boundaries and thresholds for how this can be bounded outside the law, or in a political arena.

As i see it, there is only one real out they could subscribe that would be a higher threshold than Trump already got in the House and Senate citations stating he was responsible for the insurrection and that would be an impeachment and conviction. The problem that the SC would have with that, is that people who are not in office have been barred via the 14th. Meaning, lets say this was Hillary doing an insurrection after the 2016 loss, they could not impeach her due to her not being the Office holder, but they could still use the 12th bar her from any future runs as there is no requirement the person to be an office holder.

So that means the very highest bar, outside legal prosecution is what Trump already got and thus any boundary ther SC would be below that.


I now move the odds of the SC barring him to 70/30 unless they want to be completely hypocritical and go against their Originalist claimed beliefs and read in to the Constitution a new clause that 'requires conviction'.
Click to expand...

Nothing screams "I hate Democracy" like trying to get your only opponent taken off the ballot. :rolleyes:


This is just the Democrats' latest schtick in a long list of schemes to try and cheat the next election.

Always scheming, these fuckers.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Nothing screams "I hate Democracy" like trying to get your only opponent taken off the ballot. :rolleyes:


This is just the Democrats' latest schtick in a long list of schemes to try and cheat the next election.

Always scheming, these fuckers.
Click to expand...

You only want to adhere to the portions of the Constitution you agree with and disregard those you don’t.

Find a literate 10 year old to read and explain the 14th Amendment to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top