The Trial of Donald J Trump -- Just trial info here

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

How’s your study of the constitution  coming? 

Wait. What? Weren’t you the one that said none of this has anything to do with the Constitution? 😉

[All_Pro_Bills]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

How’s your study of the constitution  coming? 

My study is on hold pending a simple answer to a simple question you are refusing to provide.  So right back at you.

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

How disappointed will some here be if Trump doesn't go to prison?  I won't buy the argument they'll accept it as justice served because they've already got him doing time before the prosecution in any indictment has an opportunity to present the first piece of "evidence" and the defense gets an opportunity for rebuttal.

 

 

 

Given the evidence in the Mar A Lago case, there's no reason he wouldn't go to prison other than politics. It's the most overwhelming case I've ever seen and the only reason someone in his position wouldn't plead out is because they think they can derail the case, because they cannot seriously hope to win it.

[BillsFanNC]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

Given the evidence in the Mar A Lago case, there's no reason he wouldn't go to prison other than politics. It's the most overwhelming case I've ever seen and the only reason someone in his position wouldn't plead out is because they think they can derail the case, because they cannot seriously hope to win it.

 

Some days you've got to wade through a lot of crap to see how much of a lunatic the king is.

 

Then there's posts like this where the hackery is out in the open on full display.

 

What an absolute embarrassment.

 

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

My study is on hold pending a simple answer to a simple question you are refusing to provide.  So right back at you.

Hoax.  You were told.  You still can’t put your finger on the part of the 14A that requires a conviction to trigger application of the elected office bar.  That’s because it doesn’t exist.  And you got your answer as to why, to the extent one was to go beyond the plain language of that amendment and review the construction of that text, your point is misguided and frankly stupid.  Maybe you can find one of those continuing adult education places and get some help there with a civics class. 

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Wait. What? Weren’t you the one that said none of this has anything to do with the Constitution? 😉

Hoax.  Different issue.  All Pro Bills Man has a little reading comprehension problem about which I reminded him. 

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Given the evidence in the Mar A Lago case, there's no reason he wouldn't go to prison other than politics. It's the most overwhelming case I've ever seen and the only reason someone in his position wouldn't plead out is because they think they can derail the case, because they cannot seriously hope to win it.

Winner winner chicken dinner.  He’s cooked.  He had the docs, he knew he had the docs, and he tried to hide the docs.  Adios to that fatso. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You were told.  You still can’t put your finger on the part of the 14A that requires a conviction to trigger application of the elected office bar.  That’s because it doesn’t exist.  And you got your answer as to why, to the extent one was to go beyond the plain language of that amendment and review the construction of that text, your point is misguided and frankly stupid.  Maybe you can find one of those continuing adult education places and get some help there with a civics class.

Here's the finger.

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is a prerequisite for disqualification from office.  But nobody engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion.  There was no such event.  No person was charged.  No person was convicted.  A committee report doesn't correspond to law.  And lots of people throwing around the word insurrection just means they're entitled to their opinion.  But that's all it is, an opinion.  And opinions are not the basis of invoking constitutional amendments.  So the section is not applicable. 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the finger.

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is a prerequisite for disqualification from office.  But nobody engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion.  There was no such event.  No person was charged.  No person was convicted.  A committee report doesn't correspond to law.  And lots of people throwing around the word insurrection just means they're entitled to their opinion.  But that's all it is, an opinion.  And opinions are not the basis of invoking constitutional amendments.  So the section is not applicable. 

 

 

Hoax.  You specifically said the 14A requires a conviction of engagement in such activities as a predicate to application.  That’s what you have to (and can’t) put your finger on, hoax man. 

12 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Here's the finger.

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Engaging in an insurrection or a rebellion is a prerequisite for disqualification from office.  But nobody engaged in an insurrection or a rebellion.  There was no such event.  No person was charged.  No person was convicted.  A committee report doesn't correspond to law.  And lots of people throwing around the word insurrection just means they're entitled to their opinion.  But that's all it is, an opinion.  And opinions are not the basis of invoking constitutional amendments.  So the section is not applicable. 

 

 

This is where it all began, hoax man:

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

^^^^^^^^^  some MSNBC lawyer talk going on right there.

 

 

[SectionC3]

Just now, Chris farley said:

^^^^^^^^^  some MSNBC lawyer talk going on right there.

 

 

Hoax.  Literacy counts.  And words matter.  Unless you’re MAGA, in which case you just make things up about the Constitution and pretend that you’re right.  

[Tommy Callahan]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Literacy counts.  And words matter.  Unless you’re MAGA, in which case you just make things up about the Constitution and pretend that you’re right.  

like these words.

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Directly from the documents you claim to be talking about.

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

like these words.

 

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Directly from the documents you claim to be talking about.

 

 

It doesn’t say one must be convicted of those acts, dummy.  That’s the point.  MAGA is trying to read (ironic, I know) something into the amendment that doesn’t exist.  The correct standard is found to “have engaged in” such acts.  

[Tommy Callahan]

12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It doesn’t say one must be convicted of those acts, dummy.  That’s the point.  MAGA is trying to read (ironic, I know) something into the amendment that doesn’t exist.  The correct standard is found to “have engaged in” such acts.  

LMAO. in the republic one is not guilty of something without being charged and convicted by a jury of peers.

 

 

 

No matter how many talking heads on MSNBC/CNN said different.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Chris farley

[TSOL]

16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It doesn’t say one must be convicted of those acts, dummy.  That’s the point.  MAGA is trying to read (ironic, I know) something into the amendment that doesn’t exist.  The correct standard is found to “have engaged in” such acts.  

 

 

Thank you for explaining these unprecedented laws for us, your honor 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

LMAO. in the republic one is not guilty of something without being charged and convicted.

 

No matter how many talking heads on MSNBC/CNN said different.

 

 

Again, words matter.  Application of the disability does not turn on a conviction.  That’s simply not said in the amendment.  If you bothered to think about the historical context for the amendment, it would be pretty obvious why. 

 

Interestingly, while you were busy watching OAN and complaining about how your laziness is someone else’s fault, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service updated its research with respect to this issue in 2022.  And, there, it notes, among other things, that a civil action typically has been used to apply the disability bar in this amendment.  Which means that, in simple terms that you still probably can’t understand, the burden of proof is lower (perhaps preponderance of the evidence, perhaps clear and convincing evidence) than in a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt).  So you read it here first: this is the path by which the establishment Republicans will nuke Trump.  If that fool somehow manages to win the primary, then the conversation about whether this amendment will apply will start to arise.  That determination probably will flow from a civil proceeding that very well could end up at the Supreme Court (and, perhaps, later Congress, which would be a nightmare for Republicans), and it’s going to end Trump’s ability to hold an enumerated office. 

Just now, TSOL said:

 

 

Thank you for explaining these unprecedented laws for us, your honor 

Hoax.  Take a civics class and learn about reconstruction. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

41 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You specifically said the 14A requires a conviction of engagement in such activities as a predicate to application.  That’s what you have to (and can’t) put your finger on, hoax man. 

This is where it all began, hoax man:

 

 

Your evasive.  Tell me what it does require?  If it doesn't require a conviction what does it require?  An accusation?  Like a witch hunt?  Punishment without guilt beyond a reasonable doubt along with a presumption of innocence is the foundation of the legal system.

So one more time.  What's required to invoke 14a on a citizen?

Please, no more of your hoax horse crap.  

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Your evasive.  Tell me what it does require?  If it doesn't require a conviction what does it require?  An accusation?  Like a witch hunt?  Punishment without guilt beyond a reasonable doubt along with a presumption of innocence is the foundation of the legal system.

So one more time.  What's required to invoke 14a on a citizen?

Please, no more of your hoax horse crap.  

Hoax.  Bottom line: what is required is not a conviction.  Otherwise, the amendment would have said as much.  (That’s a conservative interpretation, FYI.).

 

It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing.  I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office.  (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.).  

 

And, if you bothered to think about this objectively for a moment, there’s a good reason why the conviction language wasn’t included in the amendment.  This is a civil war era amendment designed to keep traitors out of office.  To require a conviction for application would have been a ridiculous and unworkable approach that would have either demanded hundreds of thousands of prosecutions of people who might possibly become enumerated officeholders, or that would have rendered the amendment largely toothless.  So it is today that Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of a damn thing for the disability to apply.  Such are the ups and downs of the plain language of the federal constitution. 

Edited August 18, 2023 by SectionC3

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax

[Tommy Callahan]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Bottom line: what is required is not a conviction.  Otherwise, the amendment would have said as much.  (That’s a conservative interpretation, FYI.).

 

It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing.  I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office.  (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.).  

 

And, if you bothered to think about this objectively for a moment, there’s a good reason why the conviction language wasn’t included in the amendment.  This is a civil war era amendment designed to keep traitors out of office.  To require a conviction for application would have been a ridiculous and unworkable approach that would have either demanded hundreds of thousands of prosecutions of people who might possibly become enumerated officeholders, or that would have rendered the amendment largely toothless.  So it is today that Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of a damn thing for the disability to apply.  Such are the ups and downs of the plain language of the federal constitution. 

Any sources for the use of the fourteenth, at that time, for these people in the story you told?

 

 

It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing.  I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office.  (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

 

Both houses of the United States Congress have refused to seat new members based on Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

This had been interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency. From the decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 currently lays out the procedures by which each House determines contested 

 

And thats not talking about the executive branch.

 

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax

Quite the opposite.  

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

Any sources for the use of the fourteenth, at that time, for these people in the story you told?

 

 

It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing.  I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office.  (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

 

Both houses of the United States Congress have refused to seat new members based on Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

This had been interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency. From the decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 currently lays out the procedures by which each House determines contested 

 

And thats not talking about the executive branch.

 

 

 

 

 

You may wish to look at the Congressional Research Services paper.  

2 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Any sources for the use of the fourteenth, at that time, for these people in the story you told?

 

 

It’s uncertain whether anything in the form of judicial action is required; in theory, this clause could be self-executing.  I don’t ascribe to that theory, and the way the disability probably is asserted and/or attaches is through an act of the body in question (such as Congress unseating a member), through a declaratory judgment action (someone with standing sues and gets a judgment in a court of law directing application of the disability), or through a civil proceeding seeking to invalidate an act of a “disabled” holder of an enumerated office.  (The third way is a pretty obtuse manner in which to approach the issue.).  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

 

Both houses of the United States Congress have refused to seat new members based on Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

This had been interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency. From the decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 currently lays out the procedures by which each House determines contested 

 

And thats not talking about the executive branch.

 

 

 

 

 

Different part of the constitution, big boy. 

[Tommy Callahan]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Quite the opposite.  

You may wish to look at the Congressional Research Services paper.  

you could have looked at the link or read the comment to see it references that.

 

and has never been used on an executive. 

 

And list every event.

 

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

you could have looked at the link or read the comment to see it references that.

 

and has never been used on an executive. 

 

And list every event.

 

 

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

yes, you can keep repeating the same BS over and over again.  

 

the rest is a figment of your imagination.

 

And you all wonder why people call the left commies and that they want to transform the country.  

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

yes, you can keep repeating the same BS over and over again.  

 

the rest is a figment of your imagination.

 

And you all wonder why people call the left commies and that they want to transform the country.  

 

 

 

 

Meaningless drivel.   In point of fact you’re the one who doesn’t want to follow the constitution, and therefore who wants to transform our country.  You got cooked and everyone with half a brain knows it.  Don’t like what the constitution says?  Get a convention together and do something about it.  Until then, stop complaining and try taking a civics class or two.  

[Tommy Callahan]

Lmao as you keep puking msm narratives while talking about others needing to learn. 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Lmao as you keep puking msm narratives while talking about others needing to learn. 

Let us know when you have something other than a MAGA euphemism to add.  Or, better yet, take that civics class so that someday you might have something constructive to contribute.  

[TSOL]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

 

 

So you give your personal interpretation of a vague 200 year old law, state it as fact and that's your idea cooking MAGA's? 

 

Interesting, tell us more 

[SectionC3]

34 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

So you give your personal interpretation of a vague 200 year old law, state it as fact and that's your idea cooking MAGA's? 

 

Interesting, tell us more 

 

Hoax.  It’s not vague.  Plain as day, as a matter of fact.  CRS—nonpartisan congressional staff—happens to agree with me.  Keep on trying and I’ll keep on cooking you and your MAGA pals.  

[TSOL]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  It’s not vague.  Plain as day, as a matter of fact.  CRS—nonpartisan congressional staff—happens to agree with me.  Keep on trying and I’ll keep on cooking you and your MAGA pals.  

 

 

If that's your idea of cooking I'd hate to try your lasagne. 

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

If that's your idea of cooking I'd hate to try your lasagne. 

That’s the best you have?  

[SectionC3]

It's almost like someone here said the same thing days ago.  Enjoy, hoaxers:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

It's almost like someone here said the same thing days ago.  Enjoy, hoaxers:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

 

 

The term "insurrection" has been tossed around, from the start,  for a reason it seems. It could be argued that it was a rally gone awry. It's the liberal CNN crowd that has insisted on "insurrection" from the start, and after reading this article, for obvious reasons. 

 

The liberal Democrat controlled media has been pushing that narrative, as well as the "overthrow the government" narrative. But that's a Democrat strategy, control the narrative. And who could be anymore democrat affiliated than CNN, which at this point is basically just a tabloid like the national enquirer. 

 

The crowd truly believed that the election had been rigged, that dead people had votes counted, and illegal immigrant votes had been counted, which I personally believe was the case, there is evidence of that being the case. So their goal wasn't to overthrow the government, their goal was to not concede the presidency until it was 100% true that the election results had not been manipulated. 

 

There's video of government agency employees inciting the crowd to enter the building, egging on an already highly tense crowd because the magnitude of what was at stake was so sacred and so important. 

 

There was never and coordinated goal of "overthrowing the government", the crowd, and the candidate simply wanted to be certain that the results of the election hadn't been manipulated and I argue that they had every right to get to the bottom of the election results. 

 

This is not a clear cut case, I know you fancy yourself an absolutist, a legal expert but this complex set of circumstances really can't be definitively decided in the court of public opinion. 

 

This is going to take many years in the supreme court to sort out so just calm your t*ts 

[SectionC3]

Hoax.  When did you become so familiar with Supreme Court practice? 

[TSOL]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  When did you become so familiar with Supreme Court practice? 

 

 

First of all we are going to have to clearly define the term "insurrection" 

 

You see how this works? 

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

First of all we are going to have to clearly define the term "insurrection" 

 

You see how this works? 

Hoax.  Courts of law will.  Your boy is cooked.  Carry on. 

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax.

 

Commie.

[TSOL]

21 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Courts of law will.  Your boy is cooked.  Carry on. 

 

 

In many many years, stayed tuned... 

15 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax.

 

Commie.

 

 

I do not know that he's a commie as much as he is just a pompous blowhard 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

In many many years, stayed tuned... 

 

 

I do not know that he's a commie as much as he is just a pompous blowhard 

Hoax to both.  To the extent it is brought, this case will move quickly and will be given priority.  And, dictionaries from the 1860s may soon be at a premium.  

 

You two dummies can call me all the names you want.  But Mike Luttig just so happened to come up with the same point after it was made here.  (I believe; I didn't see the Luttig article until this morning.). Bottom line - the Trump goose is gonna get cooked, and there's nothing that MAGA can do about it. 

[TSOL]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax to both.  To the extent it is brought, this case will move quickly and will be given priority.  And, dictionaries from the 1860s may soon be at a premium.  

 

You two dummies can call me all the names you want.  But Mike Luttig just so happened to come up with the same point after it was made here.  (I believe; I didn't see the Luttig article until this morning.). Bottom line - the Trump goose is gonna get cooked, and there's nothing that MAGA can do about it. 

 

 

You put alot of effort into pontificating but you put very little effort into backing it up, I get it, English is hard. 

 

Insurrection implies a military style action, a revolt, a rebellion. I did not see a rebellion, I didn't see a military takeover, I saw a few hundred disillusioned protesters entering a public building and kicking a few doors breaking a few windows, and milling about not sure what they were doing in there then leaving after an hour or two. 

 

Does that amount to a military revolt? They didn't have weapons so I do not believe that it did. 

 

The insurrection term coined by the CNN crowd and the all too eager democratic party, to take power,   just doesn't sit with me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. It's not an antelope. 

 

But I guess I should expect nothing less than attempts to redefine English language like the democratic party does 

 

"I'm not a man, I'm a woman" 

"It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn" 

Etc etc etc.

 

You guys need to clean up your verbiage. 

[Buffarukus]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:25 PM, SectionC3 said:

Meaningless drivel.   In point of fact you’re the one who doesn’t want to follow the constitution, and therefore who wants to transform our country.  You got cooked and everyone with half a brain knows it.  Don’t like what the constitution says?  Get a convention together and do something about it.  Until then, stop complaining and try taking a civics class or two.  

 

Can i copy and paste this for the gun debate thread? Fair use. 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

You put alot of effort into pontificating but you put very little effort into backing it up, I get it, English is hard. 

 

Insurrection implies a military style action, a revolt, a rebellion. I did not see a rebellion, I didn't see a military takeover, I saw a few hundred disillusioned protesters entering a public building and kicking a few doors breaking a few windows, and milling about not sure what they were doing in there then leaving after an hour or two. 

 

Does that amount to a military revolt? They didn't have weapons so I do not believe that it did. 

 

The insurrection term coined by the CNN crowd and the all too eager democratic party, to take power,   just doesn't sit with me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. It's not an antelope. 

 

But I guess I should expect nothing less than attempts to redefine English language like the democratic party does 

 

"I'm not a man, I'm a woman" 

"It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn" 

Etc etc etc.

 

You guys need to clean up your verbiage. 

You need to find an 1860s dictionary. Your opinion of the meaning of insurrection has no bearing on this issue. 

1 minute ago, Buffarukus said:

 

Can i copy and paste this for the gun debate thread? Fair use. 

Sure.  Maybe check out the tail of the Bruen opinion while you’re at it.  Or Heller.  Whatever suits you.