daz28

This guy is 100% wrong/lying(and I'll bet he's aware too), and that's surprising, because it looks like he was around in 1870. It is WIDELY known and publicized, that there was ZERO chance former Confederates could run for election. ABSOLUTELY no chance Jefferson Davis could have run. Zip zero none nadda. If Jesse wasn't a complete shill, he would have asked, "then what was the purpose of the 14th Amendment", and the stammering fool would have stammered until they took him off to the nursing home. They should, because our ideals of democracy and rights came from there. Understanding history, and why things are what they are now, might be one of the most important things a person can know. Being ignorant is never a good idea, but it doesn't slow down dummies opinions one bit. You aske a lot of questions, that you know you will never get an answer to. At least an honest answer, anyways.

Ah that's clever. Have zero debate on the actual legal issue, then try to paraphrase me thru a stupid MSNBC clip. About as weak as it gets. You should probably spend more time with the posters you didn't block.

Correct, there's not a lot of faith in the SC right now, but they're the law of the land. I'm not a right or left nutjob who wants to defund police or the DOJ, because I'm not currently getting my way. I deal with what it is until it isn't, and I don't need a hundred conspiracy theories to make BS make sense, either. it's called reality. ...and don't worry bro, it's not you. I don't "bet" with rando's on the internet, so nothing to find funny. I also don't donate to princes in Africa who DM me on Facebook.

Which may have no bearing on whether it actually should have or not. I'll accept the result without an insurrection, though. You're the second joker who wanted to "bet" on this. LOL I already got Fanduel bro, but thanks anyways. If Fanduel won't accept my bet that the right will lose their ever loving minds(and kwy CiViL wAr) if they DO uphold it, then I'll get back to you on that.

Yeah, Ramaswamy isn't a Trump plant,eh? He's withdrawing from the COL primary if they don't reinstate his OPPONENT Trump. You can't make this complete and utter clown show they're calling a presidential primary crap up. This was funner when they at least could fool a few people. Everyone's favorite genius Elon thinks it should be up to the voters. No Elon, the voters don't get to decide what the Constitution says, and who, what and when it applies to. That's the Supreme Courts job. Like seriously, wtf are these people smoking???

Dunno. How much do justices normally charge to not recuse themselves, and overturn an insurrection/save Trumps political life.

Imagine going comfortably smug enough to go through all of those careful steps, without remembering to stack the Supreme Court first. Then they can stop at: #2. Dems celebrate. Gesh them plotting Dems always forget that one important step, that makes the most sense. 🙄

It is, and that's why I roasted the hell out of this about 10 posts ago. He didn't even attempt to counter any of it.

Omg, imagine a plaintiff calling a witness who was there that day. They also called officer Daniel Hodges of Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department recalled being beaten and having someone try to gouge out his eye as he defended the Capitol from the rioters. Footage from the body camera he was wearing that day was shown in court. “I was afraid for my life and my colleagues,” Hodges said. “I was afraid for the people in the U.S. Capitol building — congressmen, the vice president and what these people would do to them and how it would affect our democracy.” Also, an excerpt from this Nova campaign clowns OWN TWEET: Winston Pingeon, "when they arrived, members of the mob assaulted, pushed, and pepper sprayed him and his fellow officers. Office Pingeon described engaging in hand-to-hand combat for up to 3 hours while he and the other officers tried to fend of the attackers". Imagine being too dumb to cut that from your own tweet, but most GQP'ers don't read. ...... but yeah Eric Swalwell. LOLOL

Yes, I struggled through the horrible grammar, but maybe I missed something, because I was in such a hurry to find out what Tucker wants GQP'ers to repeat next. He won't "have to", and I'm sure he won't even though his wife was texting a prime witness for the prosecution in the election trial. When it comes to our country, sometimes Roberts does the right thing. It's also not impossible one of the conservatives actually defends the Constitution. Unlikely, but possible.

When he has to recuse himself, it's going to make the vote a LOT more interesting. From what I've researched, this is what you will hear if it's a 4-4 tie: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” For those of you still struggling with schoolhouse rock judicial, that means the COL ruling stands(along with all the other states).

Illegals entering the country will not get a court to invoke the 14th Amendment, even in Floriduh or Texass. Maybe just stick with the sham impeachment gambit. How many right-wing outlets have attempted to dispute the COL courts claims? I'm going to guess none.

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.