The Supreme Court has agreed to consider Colorado’s decision to deem Trump ineligible to run under the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

[Die Hard]

6 hours ago, FuriousD said:

One of the most eye opening revelations from the Jan 6 Committee hearings was the “win or declare election fraud” plan taking root well before November.  If I remember correctly, plan-B to break the law if the election didn’t go their way was on the table April or May of 2020. 

It actually already started in 2016… he was already talking about it leading up to the election against Hilary. But once he won… he didn’t have to push the agenda any further. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I just think it's hard to make this case with no one being convicted or even charged with insurrection. 

Are you sure you want each state to be able to determine for itself what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " ?

 

Are you sure that's what you want ?

 

Absolutely, yes. Because it's not simply "the state" that determines this.

 

There are legal hearings conducted, legal arguments given, cases presented from all sides, and judicial determinations made at the end of it...the main difference is that the judge's or court's decision doesn't include legal/criminal punishment for anyone. No one's freedom, life, liberty, or property is being threatened.

 

If we required someone first be convicted of participating in insurrection before they are disqualified from holding office, those cases take years to ever get to court nonetheless conclude with a verdict...and then there's the appeals process to boot. Trump would have LOVED it if you had to first be convicted, not because he feels he'll be found "not guilty," but because he knows beyond doubt that any successful case against him in court wouldn't have had any chance in hell of being completed before the next election.

[Spearfeather]

16 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Yes.  

 

In the 150 or so years of this Amendment being active, now is the apporpriate moment.  We have never had a serious discussion on this now.  Highly likely we'll have more of this if we don't put feet down.

 

O.k. That's cool.

 

 

It's a late spring afternoon. A crowd of a couple thousand has gathered at the Capital protesting a bill that every Republican is voting for,  Democrats and the left are absolutely apoplectic about it. There's been a couple of rocks thrown through the windows, halting proceedings for 45 min. A couple of fights with Capital police and around 35 arrest. Assaulting Capital Police, Destruction of property, etc.

 

Over at the White House, Joe is in his favorite den in the Whitehouse, sitting in his favorite chair, feet propped up on the ottoman. His chin, resting gently on his chest. Karine, unaware of the arrest at the Capital, comes running in and informs Joe about the crowd at the Capital protesting the bill that Joe has already stated his disdain for. " The staff is suggesting a statement of support Mr. President ".  " My statement is I support them 100 percent ", says Joe. " Yes Mr. President.  We'll get that out, right away." The protest continues for a couple of more hours, with two people associated with Antifa being arrested while trying to break down a door at the back of the Capital and are facing federal charges.

About 15 minutes later, a photograph on social media starts going viral showing two protesters holding up signs saying " Eradicate the Republicans ", and just to the left of them there's a guy standing with what appears to be a pistol in his hand but some are saying it's some type of baton. There are no weapons arrest.

 

Come November,  Biden is off the ballot in 19 states for " engaging in insurrection ".

 

 

" But, but, .. they never got inside the..."

Doesn't matter.

" But, no one was even charged with insurr..."

Doesn't matter. 

" But Joe never said ... "

Doesn't matter

 

State Judges and Election Officials in these 19 states have determined that Joe, with his statement of support, combined with the " Eradicate the Republicans " signs, along with the ( possibly) armed guy standing next to them and the " Antifa Two " .. is guilty of " engaging in insurrection ".

 

These State Judges and Election Officials have spoken, and that's that.

 

 

[Ball Security]

Why wouldn’t Biden just say, “don’t worry, I’ll veto the bill”?

[Captain Wiggles]

Protesting a bill = insurrection 🤣

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

O.k. That's cool.

 

 

It's a late spring afternoon. A crowd of a couple thousand has gathered at the Capital protesting a bill that every Republican is voting for,  Democrats and the left are absolutely apoplectic about it. There's been a couple of rocks thrown through the windows, halting proceedings for 45 min. A couple of fights with Capital police and around 35 arrest. Assaulting Capital Police, Destruction of property, etc.

 

Over at the White House, Joe is in his favorite den in the Whitehouse, sitting in his favorite chair, feet propped up on the ottoman. His chin, resting gently on his chest. Karine, unaware of the arrest at the Capital, comes running in and informs Joe about the crowd at the Capital protesting the bill that Joe has already stated his disdain for. " The staff is suggesting a statement of support Mr. President ".  " My statement is I support them 100 percent ", says Joe. " Yes Mr. President.  We'll get that out, right away." The protest continues for a couple of more hours, with two people associated with Antifa being arrested while trying to break down a door at the back of the Capital and are facing federal charges.

About 15 minutes later, a photograph on social media starts going viral showing two protesters holding up signs saying " Eradicate the Republicans ", and just to the left of them there's a guy standing with what appears to be a pistol in his hand but some are saying it's some type of baton. There are no weapons arrest.

 

Come November,  Biden is off the ballot in 19 states for " engaging in insurrection ".

 

 

" But, but, .. they never got inside the..."

Doesn't matter.

" But, no one was even charged with insurr..."

Doesn't matter. 

" But Joe never said ... "

Doesn't matter

 

State Judges and Election Officials in these 19 states have determined that Joe, with his statement of support, combined with the " Eradicate the Republicans " signs, along with the ( possibly) armed guy standing next to them and the " Antifa Two " .. is guilty of " engaging in insurrection ".

 

These State Judges and Election Officials have spoken, and that's that.

 

 

While I agree with your larger point, that you can’t block someone from being on a ballot just because they were accused of insurrection, I don’t think the two scenarios are the same. Trump was actively trying to subvert election results. January six was just one of many attempts at insurrection.

 

I don’t see support for violent protestors over a bill as being insurrection…. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Why wouldn’t Biden just say, “don’t worry, I’ll veto the bill”?

Cause he lost control over the house and senate and they have 2/3 majority 🤪

[Spearfeather]

10 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Protesting a bill = insurrection 🤣

 

I think you're leaving some things out. 

10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

While I agree with your larger point, that you can’t block someone from being on a ballot just because they were accused of insurrection, I don’t think the two scenarios are the same

 

They don't have to be. That's the whole point. 

[Fergasun]

@Spearfeather

Just stop with the strawmen.  Nothing like that is gonna happen. Just pretend that what Trump did wasn't so bad by drawing false equivalencies and generating a parade of horribles.  I see how much you value the Constitution.  

[Larry]

8 hours ago, Fergasun said:

The whole thing on "insurrection" is being intentionally confused. So are the "complicated legal issues."  Trump and members of his team worked to overturn the election results so that he could remain President in time period from November 9 to January 6.

 

Just pointing out - the plan to overturn the election was being planned, a month before the election, too.  

 

I will cite as evidence:  

 

Donald Trump, when asked if there will be a peaceful transfer of power if he looses the election, saying "The key is the ballots.  If you get rid of the ballots there won't be a transfer of power."  

 

Mitch Mcconnel, I think the same week, asked whether the transition will be peaceful, saying that He's confident that Trump will win "once all the legal votes are counted."  (My emphasis.)  

 

That word wasn't put in there by accident.  

 

Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell, a month before the election, knew it was likely that Trump was going to lose the election.  And were already at work on the plan to wait till the election is over, and then figure out which ballots they needed to get rid of, to make the result come out the way they wanted.  

[Spearfeather]

2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

drawing false equivalencies

 

I know they're not exactly the same.

I purposely made them that way.

 

[Larry]

7 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

I just think it's hard to make this case with no one being convicted or even charged with insurrection. 

Are you sure you want each state to be able to determine for itself what qualifies as " engaged in insurrection " ?

 

Are you sure that's what you want ?

 

Are you sure you want each state to decide whether RFK Jr can run 3rd Party?  Or whether the state will have a Party Primary, and when?  Or who's allowed to vote for which Party in them?  Or whether mail-in ballots are valid, and the rules for accepting them?  

[Captain Wiggles]

8 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I know they're not exactly the same.

I purposely made them that way.

 

 

Well at least you can admit that your phony bull**** scenario was just that, bull****. 🤣

[Larry]

20 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I know they're not exactly the same.

I purposely made them that way.

 

 

Analogies are like farts.  

 

If you have to force it, it's probably crap.  

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

36 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I think you're leaving some things out. 

 

They don't have to be. That's the whole point. 

Ok. Remotely similar.

Edited January 31 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Spearfeather]

19 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Well at least you can admit that your phony bull**** scenario was just that, bull****. 🤣

 

Not what I'm saying, at all.

[PokerPacker]

55 minutes ago, Larry said:

Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell, a month before the election, knew it was likely that Trump was going to lose the election.  And were already at work on the plan to wait till the election is over, and then figure out which ballots they needed to get rid of, to make the result come out the way they wanted.  

Correction: Their plan was never to wait until the election was over.  They had been taking actions to subvert the election the whole time, what with Trump being very vocal against mail-in votes so that his voters would be more likely to vote in-person, allowing him to target mail-in ballots for exclusion from the election through multiple avenues, including having his Post-master General slow down ballot-delivery so that ballots would arrive past the deadline and be thrown out.  It was a multi-pronged attack on our democracy.

[Captain Wiggles]

😉

 

[skinsfan4128]

5 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

😉

 

I'm dying to sign upto truth social just to put thos orange faced **** on blast.

 

I refrain from doing so cause it wouldn't do any good.  But damn would it feel good to let that mother****er know he sucks.

 

I'd get banned and told I'm an anti-american.  But by God,  I COULD DO IT IN ALL CAPS AND THAT'D BE AWESOME AS ITS ALL RIGGED!

 

Carry on.

 

HTTR!

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Correction: Their plan was never to wait until the election was over.  They had been taking actions to subvert the election the whole time, what with Trump being very vocal against mail-in votes so that his voters would be more likely to vote in-person, allowing him to target mail-in ballots for exclusion from the election through multiple avenues, including having his Post-master General slow down ballot-delivery so that ballots would arrive past the deadline and be thrown out.  It was a multi-pronged attack on our democracy.

 

Oh, I agree. 

 

See, a plan to win by selectively throwing out boxes ballots doesn't work if every box has the same ratio of votes. 

 

You have to arrange it so that some boxes are more Republican than others. And you have to know which boxes are more Republican. That way you know which boxes to throw out. 

 

Every single Republican who encouraged Republicans voters to vote in person?  Knew about the plan. And was working to implement it. 

 

Before the election. 

[@DCGoldPants]

3 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

LOL @ the part in bold 😂...

 

Yeah. I know some of the melodies from her songs but not the lyrics. Except Shake it off. 

[JCB]

What Larry said. Their plans were wide open for all to view as early as the summer. There was a huge article in The Atlantic describing it in detail, and this got picked up internationally. Every single non-cultist knew. Every one. It was discussed energetically by us all on this site, over months.

 

A protest that gets out of hand is galaxies away. People wilding sucks and they should be held accountable for crimes. But this was a deeply plotted attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election. There are in fact widely established definitions of insurrection which can and do guide state reasoning on such matters. Kinda like, y’know, the Constitution does. 
 

So seriously, as a guy who grew up 5 blocks from the Capitol, I say gtfo with this tripe.

[Spearfeather]

8 hours ago, JCB said:

There are in fact widely established definitions of insurrection which can and do guide state reasoning on such matters. Kinda like, y’know, the Constitution does. 

 

So, what do you think the dissenting judges meant in the 4-3 Colorado case, when they said this:

 

 

Quote

Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law," Samour wrote in his dissent. "Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office."

 

Quote

Samour wrote, " more broadly, I am disturbed about the potential chaos wrought by an imprudent, unconstitutional, and standardless system in which each state gets to adjudicate Section Three disqualification cases on an ad hoc basis,” Samour wrote.

 

[Bang]

The accused have the right to a speedy trial.
I'd suggest the victim does, too.
Especially when the person on trial's entire plan is to delay the trials long enough to potentially win election and subsequently halt all the trials...  and of course have the judges and prosecutors thrown in jail. He's not on trial for parking tickets or petty crimes. The guy is on trial for
A/ fomenting an insurrection. He's been charged in these things, and charges require more than 'we don't like him" as a basis to bring them to court. These aren't civil suits.
B/ Stealing National Security information so highly classified that they are trying to figure out how to even talk about them in court.

The financial crimes, rapes, sexual misconducts and assaults, are, believe it or not, small potatoes compared to what he's done..  er. excuse me, , "accused" of being done while bragging about it right in front of the world and then stupidly admitting to it over and over.
 

When we worry about abuse of the system for the gain of power, who are we truly talking about?
One party is authoritarian already, bent on fascism, and dream of a dictator Trump, who's already said that is what he'd do.

Or the other guys.

 

**** beating around the bush. 

 

~Bang

 

 

[Fergasun]

 I feel like the arguments before the Russian impeachment were similar.  "Don't impeach Trump or we will impeach every Dem president!"  Where is Joe's literal impeachment?  

 

If Texas or any other state wants to throw Biden off the ballot, why not do that process now?  It's going to be under false pretext any way.  What are they waiting for?

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 I feel like the arguments before the Russian impeachment were similar.  "Don't impeach Trump or we will impeach every Dem president!"  Where is Joe's literal impeachment?  

 

If Texas or any other state wants to throw Biden off the ballot, why not do that process now?  It's going to be under false pretext any way.  What are they waiting for?

Hopefully it's because slowly in some ways they are starting to figure out that the "find out" part is real, and that this is serious.

 

But i'm laughing as i hope. 

 

~Bang