daz28

No, I'm saying the SC and Congress both kick the can down the road on WAY too many issues. I'm not sure I'm following your due process thing, though. They literally heard his case, and now he can appeal. This isn't considered, and isn't required to be a criminal case. The Supreme Court will have to rule on this. I'd bet my last dollar that they don't attempt to define insurrection, or even if there was incitement. They won't elaborate on the meaning and definition of the 3rd clause. They'll just find some miniscule reason to reverse it on, and kick the can.

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.

That's the crux of this debate. RFK was all over the place trying to make this argument. First he tweeted that he should have his day in court, then tweeted that the court(his day in court) should reverse itself, then finally says the court shouldn't have even happened. I've never seen someone take 3 different positions in a couple hours, even on an internet forum. Imo, this is following the proper legal course, because there doesn't have to be a criminal charge to disqualify, and there's very little and ancient "due process" precedent here. This goes to the Supreme Court, and that's how this legal matter ends. Being as it's so multi-faceted, I can't see any way they don't find a way to rule in Trump's favor on some aspect just so they don't have to face the litany of issues present. They seem to love the kick the can down the road approach lately. Unfortunately, that stance, combined with stout partisanship in Congress is really kicking democracy in the nads.

That's not the issue here. though. That's Jack Smith's case. The issue at hand is if he violated the 14th Amendment. The problem is that the Colorado justices decided that not only was it an insurrection, but Trump also incited and participated in it. Was he afforded due process to defend himself against those claims? I'd bet the Supreme Court says no. They will just ignore the facts the Colorado court presented, and find a way to overturn on another basis. This is an extremely complicated matter, but the case law from the post Civil War does actually support this ruling.

Ok, the Democrats followed the rules, so I guess that matters, right: In 2001, House Democrats challenged the certification of electoral votes for then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Republican, but the objection failed because no senator agreed to sign the written objection. “The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said during the 2001 joint session of Congress. “The chair will advise that the rules do care,” then-Vice President Al Gore, ceremonially presiding over the session, told Waters. Gore was overseeing the very session that would confirm his loss to Bush. A similar situation occurred in 2017, when then-Vice President Joe Biden oversaw certification of the electoral votes that handed the presidency to Donald Trump. House Democrats challenged the electoral slate, but to no avail, because they lacked support in the Senate. “It is over,” Biden told Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who objected to the election results during the 2017 session. The certification challenge in 2005 was the only instance in recent years in which both a senator and a House member signed a formal objection to an electoral slate. Then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., together challenged Bush’s victory in Ohio on grounds of alleged voter irregularities. The House and Senate adjourned and met separately for no more than two hours, as the Constitution stipulates, but ultimately neither Jones nor Boxer was able to gain enough votes from their respective colleagues to alter Ohio’s electoral slate. The riot nonsense is just that, nonsense. Poor deflection, and off topic. For poops and giggles, you should probably be most concerned with Scott Walker's advisors: During the Madison protests, while 16 people were arrested, none of the arrests were linked to violence or weapons. Madison Police characterized the protesters as assembling “peacefully” and “without violence.” Wisconsin politicians from both parties were harassed and received threats but were not physically harmed. An uncovered email and a secretly taped phone call showed Gov. Scott Walker had been advised to stage a violent “false flag” event to discredit the protests and considered it, but said he decided against the action. Investigating Trump had zero to do with elections. A non sequitur. Heck, you guys argue every day that this stuff HELPS his campaign. The announcement by Comey about Hillary Clinton, on the other hand??? Not so much

The tweet already explained what the "Dems" were doing: Challenging the integrity of the 2020 election through his exercise of First Amendment-protected free speech, just like what Democrats did in 2000, 2004, and 2016. The difference is the Dems didn't pressure anyone to "find votes". They didn't have "fake electors", and they didn't pressure their VP to succumb to the pressure of an insurrection mob. All quite noticeable, significant differences.

Yeah, like the fear porn that he wasn't going to leave last time. Speaking of cheating, it literally came down to Mike Pence coming out of a bunker to count the legitimate electors. Truth. Trump has proven that he will do ANYTHING to stay in power, and the DNC has proven that it will do anything to put out a horrible candidate. A mistake which they will never learn from.

The only thing to be curious about is how he will try to destroy the 22nd Amendment. You and every rational person knows his supporters will accept anything he says or does, right down to: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?". Their loyalty(stupidity) is already bought and paid for, and is unquestionable.

That was a great legal defense manifesto you put together there. Heck, if you're ok with not getting paid, Trump could use a great legal mind, such as yours. The only argument that even Trump himself has is that he never promised to uphold the Constitution, and that "or hold any office" doesn't apply to him as president. LOL Like I already told you, his legal team will have to argue before the SC that the framers felt Jefferson Davis should have been able to run for president. Good luck with that in a court that's not using partisan "lawfare".

We're discussing the courts rationale, not your feewings on the matter. It's clearly stated that your imaginary "constitutionally protected protest, were allowed into the Capitol to wander as tourists, then turned around and went home" was actually what everyone, but Trump loyalist saw, an insurrection. They also say he participated, and gave examples how. Your widdle feewings get an: A+; You're reading, and comprehension of the law: F-

You'd have to believe his upper body strength has taken a big hit.

The only idiot here(and useless at that), is RFK for saying he didn't get his day in court, then proceeds to say he hopes the court reverses it(then says it shouldn't be up to the courts-so damn the Constitution, right)). LOLOL How many former representatives and senators, who were part of the Confederacy, attempted to use this argument? As far as I know, none, and for good reason.

One example? Originalism? This was introduced after the Civil War, and it kept TONS of confederate sesh scum off the ballots. The argument that the president put forth, that he didn't take an oath to the Constitution, is completely laughable. The "biggest crowd in history" witnessed it. This isn't legal mumbo jumbo here, and the defense he's attempting is absolute proof.

Yeah, Dak abuses the hell out of the QB slide. If a QB really wants to protect himself, that rule is right there for him to use. If a QB tries to abuse it, and gets lit up, then that's his choice, imo. The Rapp penalty was 15 yds for intent/appearance, which IS NOT a rule. Barely touched him.

Should be fun fun fun watching the SC completely ignoring all of these facts, and only voting on the "officer of the US part", when clearly the initiative of the clause is to prevent insurrectionists from running. Surely the framers didn't mean to keep Jefferson Davis off the ballot, but just his "officers". LOL This will be another not even thinly veiled show of their partisanship. At least it will be out in the open for all of us to see and judge.

If we fall out of the playoffs, it makes sense to get a look at some younger guys.

Who knows. They've kind of been crowned without proving anything yet. Tonight is questionable, and Buffalo has to win that game.

LOL Dolphins.

I really like the way that linesman handled it. He was like, "here's the line, so lineup where you think you should". It's like Andy Reid wants the ref to guide them in like an air traffic controller on a carrier. Heck, why not go out on the field, and push him into the right spot. Better yet, have someone on the sideline, from your own team, doing it. Doesn't seem like a lineman's responsibility and can even give the appearance of bias.

The ref clearly was showing him where the line was. He was a yard away, and moved up 6 inches.

I'd be shocked if no curse words were said, but it's good 'ol Patty

Who was mahomes talking to?

Kelce was open. I think Pat is jealous. Great play Floyd!

No laundry left?

Takes time to plan a disaster