daz28

OMG, you ARE watching Maddow now. What is NC gonna think of you?

Wait, are you trying to use NBC as a legit media source now??? Did you kiss n make up? Next thing I know, you'll be cuddling up to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. Still not an insurrection, btw

Protesting isn't revolting, chief. Did Oprah tweet this while it was happening: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated for so long Did Trump see the pink hats, and wun for his bunker? Crew has brought hundreds of lawsuits against Democrats. Nice twy.

He shouldn't have played FAFO. You do realize that judge after judge after judge is going to find that it was an insurrection.

Yeah, because that fits the definition: insurrection noun in·sur·rec·tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən Synonyms of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

He doesn't seem to understand that it's revealing that even flailing in the face of facts is no longer an option for him. It would be much easier, and better for his mental health to just skip off to Truth(lol) Social, where 72% of posters actually believe Trump does have a big blue ox.

Turley is saying, so there was an insurrection and maybe he did violate the 14th Amendment, but for God's sake you have to keep him if the people want him. Let's play spin the flailing wheel of insurrection for talking points. It's like burning the Constitution to light a campaign. It's amazing how quickly the Constitution lovers hate it when it is used against them. Words from the only sane one left in the pool of sewage GQP: Christie added: "Donald Trump said it is okay to suspend the Constitution. The vote you take is to preserve, protect and defend, not suspend. I will always stand up for our Constitution regardless of the political pressure."

The best part is I sent him looking for that information, and he returned with it thinking he was making a point for his argument. 😆

It's funny when a member of a party disagrees with another member of their party, when they're clearly wrong? Did you even read how Gore and Biden put an end to their own parties electoral count nonsense. What has me laughing is that every point you tried to make got flushed down the proverbial toilet, and the best you can do to defend it is laugh. Want to make me laugh some more? Explain to me how there was no fake electors plot. How there wasn't an insurrection, and how to find 11,870 votes. Now THAT'S a party with class, that sure knows how to follow the rules. 🤣

Trump sends them into court with nothing, and they're probably not the best of the best, so.... The poor guy sounded like some posters here, when I told them the legal definition of insurrection is pretty much the dictionary definition. Comically, the judge said the same thing to his high paid lawyer. The very first thing a law student needs is a dictionary. Wouldn't hurt for people on the internet to look up, and accept the meaning of words, either

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.