daz28

While we're enjoying your content, you can stop flailing any time now. It's a lot more embarrassing than you think it is.

It has already been held that a conviction isn't necessary. Some of the claims Trump's lawyers were making is laughable. Here's some: Justice Gabriel asked whether to "prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the United States government" would constitute an insurrection, prompting Gessler to reply: "To prevent the peaceful transfer? I don't think so and I'm not sure your honor. If you look historically in the context of how insurrection was used, it has to be for a substantial duration, not three hours, there has to be some geographical scope, there has to be a goal of nullifying all governmental authority in an area." The judge challenged this, commenting; "Where's all that coming from? Webster's Third International Dictionary defines it as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or against an established government. So you've added a whole lot of conditions here I'm not sure where they came from." Gessler replied: "I think probably the best exposition of that was the attorney general's briefs and the authority they provided but I think also if you look at the historical record. Now you're going to tell me, 'Mr Gessler you're making it up.' And I'm going to say, 'Well so did the judge.' And I'll say, 'We're all sort of making it up at the end of the day.'"

Very well done, sir. The only thing I might add is you may have wanted to preface this so the posters purposely avoiding any factual context to the case could ignore it. So if Poke and Tommy read this first, you might not want to read what Frank just wrote. I'd also like to add, that the definition of insurrection in America at the time was based mostly on slave revolt. ie: an uprising in an attempt to seize power. I think that fits Jan 6th pretty well.

The media has 2 choices: have integrity and go out of business, or sell the crap that the masses want to hear, and make billions. The media isn't the bad guy. The bad guy is the left/right voter who lops up the BS they were begging to be served, true or not. It's a classic case of the, 'you got exactly what you wanted, and now you can't understand why you're not happy'. Stop lapping up the media's bs, and live in reality with the facts. I know it may hurt now, but you'll be happy for it in the long run.

Courts all over the nation, Trump's DOJ, and literally 10's of thousands of people did consider those things, Lyin' Ted. What he meant to say is, "consider these alternate fake electors after Mike Pence disregards the Constitution". Not everyone's a dumb ass.

I'm not betting on them backing Trump just because, but rather because they are going to look at it, and say "what a mess", and find a way to avoid facing the details. They may be lying shills at times, but I hope they still have some honor. Oh really, I'm the one who just posted the facts on CREW, and who they've gone after before. I'm not a partisan hack.

There is no legal definition of insurrection, and that's why no one is charged with it. It's an undefined statute. Whether it was an insurrection or not is certainly up for debate, but all the judges who've ruled on it so far have said yes. Thanks for confirming one of the facts I already pointed out, and I'm glad you're actually trying to research.

So just ignore the parts of the Constitution that come up rarely? btw, there's a difference between the words unprecedented, and having precedent. There IS precedent on the disqualification clause, and I'll bet you've researched zero of it. Is the court? If so, then you're just playing the rino/deep state card, which I'm not going to argue. If Trump taught you anything, it's that the courts can and will be abused to death. It's up to the courts to get things right.

Yeah, a country where courts try to uphold the Constitution(including the 14th Amendment). Crazy, huh

Wait, where again did they fail, exactly?

Bringing a case before court isn't "unprecedented", and for someone who refuses to look at and discuss the merits of it fairly and unbiased, it sure seems partisan.

He really doesn't. He talked a good game like he understood facts, and wanted the truth/justice, but in reality he just wants Don the soon to be con to win

A conviction isn't needed for DQ. This is already established case law, albeit old case law.

When you said you wanted to have faith in our institutions, and that you wanted due process? I didn't figure that meant you wanted to only get wins for your side at whatever cost. Yeah, he doesn't have a clue what's going on. Like I told the other one, this is schoolhouse rock level stuff.

True, but now even the electorate only sees what they want to. The partisan divide is real. The football analogy is real in the fact that the refs are always for the other political team, so even a fumble is ruled not a fumble on purpose.

So whatever they say will be correct? Even if you disagree with it? That's why I'm asking you NOW what parts you think they got wrong. Also curious why, for someone supposedly non-partisan, you have the utmost faith in the Supreme Court, but nothing else. If it was a 5-4 liberal SC, would you have the same faith? I think your true partisan colors are shining through.

This shouldn't even need to be said. If the media, that people are addicted to, has them that whacked out, they should seek mental help.

I'm sorry, is there something with this statement you disagree with: It’s a good day to remind you that the patriotic group you’re a part of is infested with feds. Someone discusses something illegal (It’s time to take up arms!), that’s a fed trying to send you to prison for 20 years. Be smart and stay legal. Don’t let your anger ruin you.

Exactly, which is how due process works. Whether it's due process or partisan politics are 2 entirely different things, and I was only referring to the former. I understand your point about the plaintiff, but I'm not sure about what parts(if any) of the justice's findings you disagree with.

Yeah, don't plot crimes, and you'll be safe from the law. Sound advice. I'm shocked you found this reasonable.

Do you even know who brought this case? It's republicans backed by a group that is anti-corruption. While they target republicans more often, I believe they brought 41 cases vs GW, and 38 vs Obama. It's like 2 to 1 ratio for Congress people. Trump is a whole different animal, and they brought tons of cases against him. That's to be expected though, because no one attempts to abuse rules/loopholes like Trump does. It's a shame that anyone would even need to worry about eroding support against an insurrectionist. I already covered that, but now you're just moving the goalposts. This was about if due process is happening. I'll repost that again for you on institutions: I think we can all agree that the powers that be really aren't interested in our democracy, but rather what's expedient to achieve their ends. There's just too many loopholes, exemptions, and legal nonsense present to be exploited, with little to no will to curb it. It's amazing that we had courts and politicians that have had an urge to defend democracy this long. Nixon should have been our warning, and been heeded. Instead, we just didn't like the way that poop stain looked on us, so we took the easy way out, and hoped it never came up again.

This isn't about my faith in anything. This is about the foundations of our Constitution and democracy. Like I said, if there's no faith in them, and everything conspiracy world, then debating anything is utterly pointless.

Then you explain to me how this matter should have been handled by the judicial system, because you have me completely confused. I've always thought it was file a case, and then follow it to the Supreme Court if necessary. This is schoolhouse rock level stuff here.

About the time the lock her up ones started?? Either way, it's irrelevant. This isn't a civil case, and I think you're starting to go way off topic. This is a Constitutional case. You really think the Supreme Court is going to look at, and rule on all of the aspects of this case? LOLOL Look, I understand your concerns, but this is unfortunately the world we're living in now, and we have to have faith in our institutions, or debating anything is pointless.

Huh? Who's role is it, then? I don't know if you read up on the case facts, but the judge said he knew this was headed to the Supreme Court anyways. A case was filed and brought before a court. Trump won, and they appealed. The COL SC took up the case, and ruled against Trump. Now Trump will appeal to the US SC. This is happening EXACTLY how it's legally supposed to. I think you're a bit confused about how the judicial system works.