I guess Jeff5 and Magine were a bit wrong on their constitutional law class. Seems 9 SCOTUS members say he is ok to run and not an insurrectionist.

This will get fun as the days lead to November....

Not only did Trump win bigly, so did America and our Constitutional rights.

So kiss our asses you liberal fucktwats.

they didn't say he wasn't an insurrectionist, they said that states can't remove him from the ballot -

in a white tower viewing, the question of insurrectionist hasn't been charged nor tried in a relevant court with jurisdiction -

If you know somebody who can read get them to read it to you, they Ruled that States cannot individually decide the question and all but invited the Special Counsel to file a Superceding Indictment mirroring Trump's second impeachment.

Jeff5,
I hope you can admit that this is going to happen and you will have 4 years to complain, again.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Jeff5,
I hope you can admit that this is going to happen and you will have 4 years to complain, again.

Notably, despite the invitation in Trump's brief to do so, the Court DID NOT find what your title claims, that he's not an insurrectionist, only that States can't keep him off the ballot in States he'll lose anyway.

Jeffeosso is quite correct. Trump may yet be found to be an insurrectionist in court.

Seriously, I do not need a state court judge, Congress or anyone else to tell me what it was that I saw with my own two eyes on January 6. That is what I find so amusing about all the efforts to paint the events of January 6 as something more benign than what it was . . . who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes. The mere fact that folks waste so much of their time trying to spin up stories about what January 6 wasn't strongly suggests that they appreciate exactly what it was.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
they didn't say he wasn't an insurrectionist, they said that states can't remove him from the ballot -

in a white tower viewing, the question of insurrectionist hasn't been charged nor tried in a relevant court with jurisdiction -

This would be correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
If you know somebody who can read get them to read it to you, they Ruled that States cannot individually decide the question and all but invited the Special Counsel to file a Superceding Indictment mirroring Trump's second impeachment.

weird -- because that's not what it said, at all - the "Ruling" being the critical part - all 9 judges RULED that Colo SC was wrong to remove trump from the ballot on the 14th amendment - all of them agreed on this, all 9 ... 1,2-skip a few, there's 9 that agreed in this RULING

(again, ruling is the critical part)

In a partial concurrence, Two justices objected (and me too, btw) that the ruling should have ended THERE - and not attempt to dictate how it could be done in the future -

But no where in the published ruling did i see an (almost) invite to Jack to go file charges elsewhere -

heck, i won't even call you names, but if you could show me where https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf the scotus ruling invited further action and trying trump as an insurrectionist ... well, *I*, and at least 2 quasi-assenting justices would be relieved -


Please, just a simple cut and paste of this "invitation" - you can even skip the part where EVERYONE agreed that Colo was wrong, as I know that's distasteful for you

here's the link, again -- SHOW ME
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

The basic holding is only Congress has jurisdiction over the 14th Amendment, Insurrection Clause.

Here is the opinion if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The basic holding is only Congress has jurisdiction over the 14th Amendment, Insurrection Clause.

Here is the opinion if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

not quite -- only congress has jurisdiction AT A FEDERAL/NATIONAL LEVEL over the 14th -- and states are free to remove state candidates within State's legal system

nah, not going to leave well enough alone -- this could give rise to an interesting situation where a state could declare support of (insert cause here) could be a state level insurrection, and therefore all the candidates that supported (insert cause here) could be declared ineligible -- and with no severity given, and fewer definitions, I could see a case where (insert cause here) is abused to remove those folks from even the possibility of voter selection

heck, it would sell more Ads if there were fires and shooting and lootings video footage to go along with the state's prosecution of the supporters of (insert cause here)

You are correct.

This opinion is of no help to that guy in New Mexico.

Well reasoned. All justices agree (with the obvious) that having each state carrying a veto of who can be on the ballot for federal elections is untenable without a congressionally created system. They looked at it professionally and practically.

The ball is in congress' court.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
Well reasoned. All justices agree (with the obvious) that having each state carrying a veto of who can be on the ballot for federal elections is untenable without a congressionally created system. They looked at it professionally and practically.

The ball is in congress' court.

Not particularly well-reasoned but the correct result.

Having states decide who is going to be on the Presidential ballot was always a non-starter. Result would be chaos.

Jines, I just do not see an insurrection, at least not how Mike Lindsay would plan an insurrection. If I ever do, I assure you I will be carrying more firepower than that entire bunch of fools possessed, and some bad MFs will be with me.

Webster:

insurrection
noun
in·​sur·​rec·​tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Oxford:

insurrection

N. a violent uprising against an authority or government


. . . like I said, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Webster:

insurrection
noun
in·​sur·​rec·​tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Oxford:

insurrection

N. a violent uprising against an authority or government


. . . like I said, who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes.

Was Portland an insurection?

.

Well by that definition it was an insurrection but hell it does not qualify for what I think. I still do not see how, like many people on the forum state, they were going to overthrow the government

quote:

I still do not see how, like many people on the forum state, they were going to overthrow the government

I dunno, but just maybe the intent to keep Trump in the WH, despite having lost the election, by the means we all know they employed, is somehow akin to acting on a plan for overthrowing the govt. As I recall, the word "successfully" or a reasonable expectation of overthrowing the govt is not a criteria in the definition of insurrection.

The fact they could not succeed is irrelevant to their actions. The fact is they tried.

The fact is President Trump’s post election behavior motivated them.

The fact is President Trump did not engage in stopping it, or using his position to engage in a peaceful transition of power.

These are political sins, that should have saw his conviction in the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment. These sins should be disqualifying to every voter.

An argument can be made that Congress already declared him an Insurrectionist, a majority of both Houses voted to convict him for inciting an insurrection.

quote:

Congress already declared him an Insurrectionist, a majority of both Houses voted to convict him for inciting an insurrection.

That's a fact. Nothing to argue about there.

question?

so when Trump is removed.
and then Joe is removed.
and then nobody can get to 270,,, what then?

Well, neither is going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Not only did Trump win bigly, so did America and our Constitutional rights.

Bullshit!

You are saying this because it agrees with YOUR views.

Trump tried everything he could to over throw the government.

Idiots listened to him.

What that showed was your false sense of "democracy"

A word you do not even understand.

One Vote One Man!

Not some stupid iteration of something that fits your own convoluted sense of "freedom"!

Not at all, Saeed. For SCOTUS to not reach the conclusion they did would have meant a complete disregard to our Constitution, thus our rights. That would be very dangerous.

Most here do not like Trump. It's not about if you like someone or not, it's about doing what is right as laid out by the Founders. What IS concerning is nearly ALL of the crater counselors want rights stepped on because someone believes differently than they or or they don't 'like' someone. That speaks volume much more than Trump and his tweets.

It was pretty obvious to me that SCOTUS could reach no other conclusion and I am not, nor want to be, a lawyer. We have rights no matter how good or bad we are.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Not only did Trump win bigly, so did America and our Constitutional rights.

Bullshit!

You are saying this because it agrees with YOUR views.

Trump tried everything he could to over throw the government.

Idiots listened to him.

What that showed was your false sense of "democracy"

A word you do not even understand.

One Vote One Man!

Not some stupid iteration of something that fits your own convoluted sense of "freedom"!

And the idiots can't wait to give him another chance. FUCKIN AMAZING!

quote:

Most here do not like Trump.

That certainly doesn't include you.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Not only did Trump win bigly, so did America and our Constitutional rights.

Bullshit!

You are saying this because it agrees with YOUR views.

Trump tried everything he could to over throw the government.

Idiots listened to him.

What that showed was your false sense of "democracy"

A word you do not even understand.

One Vote One Man!

Not some stupid iteration of something that fits your own convoluted sense of "freedom"!

And the idiots can't wait to give him another chance. FUCKIN AMAZING!

Only 50% of the idiotys.

The other 50% are happy to get Commie Kamala in the WH!

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Not at all, Saeed. For SCOTUS to not reach the conclusion they did would have meant a complete disregard to our Constitution, thus our rights. That would be very dangerous.

Most here do not like Trump. It's not about if you like someone or not, it's about doing what is right as laid out by the Founders. What IS concerning is nearly ALL of the crater counselors want rights stepped on because someone believes differently than they or or they don't 'like' someone. That speaks volume much more than Trump and his tweets.

It was pretty obvious to me that SCOTUS could reach no other conclusion and I am not, nor want to be, a lawyer. We have rights no matter how good or bad we are.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Congress already declared him an Insurrectionist, a majority of both Houses voted to convict him for inciting an insurrection.

That's a fact. Nothing to argue about there.

Migraine - wrong again. No conviction. Ever. Not even remotely true.

President Trump was not convicted of the Articles of Impeachment.

I do not believe the Articles of Impeachment actually “charged” insurrection either.


ME, as a friend, I am asking you to give this one up.

It is lost. Does not mean you have to like it. The energy is needed elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
An argument can be made that Congress already declared him an Insurrectionist, a majority of both Houses voted to convict him for inciting an insurrection.

jeffie, jeffie, jeffie

"Congress" followed due process, and a simple majority is not the standard -- I mean, such a simple sentence, and so much to unpack

"Congress" of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

"Congress" did not "declare" him an insurrectionist --

the HOUSE (which is 1/2 of congress) followed procedure where a simple majority of votes is required

The Senate ACCQUITED him (twice, same process, both times) of the charges in the impeachments --

Net result - impeached, acquitted, therefore not removed from office --

LHeym, as you know I am one of your steadfast supporters and I usually agree with you, and if in disagreement I do so kindly.

I appreciate your advice which is well intended and well taken.

First thing - the 2nd impeachment charges were "incitement of insurrection" .

The statement above about the 2nd impeachment and the votes to convict is misleading. It's partially true.

First, it leaves out the part that it takes 2/3 vote to convict to have effect in that context.

However, in a context of the majority, it's true - regarding the vote to convict, but not enough for actual conviction in senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Donald_Trump#Verdict

House vote to impeach:

The House passed the article of impeachment on January 13, 2021, by a 232–197 vote. All 222 Democrats voted to impeach , joined by 10 Republicans (including House Republican Conference chairwoman Liz Cheney). Four Republicans did not vote, and the other 197 Republicans voted no.

Senate vote to convict (verdict):

Guilty - 57
Not guilty - 43

I don't like any of this. The decision to not convict was in the hands of a minority - all republicans. The majority of justices on SCOTUS are there due to politicians representing a minority of the population, by means of the electoral college.

Another thing that's misleading is that none of what happens in congress can be deemed to the analogous with a court of law, rule of law.

A majority vote in congress can't, IMO, be on the same plane as "more probable than not" civil standard in a court, nor can a 2/3 vote be compared to "beyond reasonable doubt" criminal std in court.

Impeachment conviction in the senate, as I understand it, just means removal from office. Conviction in court may follow, but the burden of proof for criminal conviction is higher than 2/3, or 66%. It's closer to 100%.

So, the claim by jeff5, which I supported is true but misleading.

It has been said that a drowning man will grab anything including that which would cause him to sink even further. Keep grabbing them rocks.

It's not me who's sinking, bluefish. It's you and your kind and you are dragging the country down with you.

https://apnews.com/article/don...opy&utm_medium=share

Trump acquitted, denounced in historic impeachment trial

Barely a month since the deadly Jan. 6 riot that stunned the world, the Senate convened for a rare weekend session to deliver its verdict, voting while armed National Guard troops continued to stand their posts outside the iconic building.

The quick trial, the nation’s first of a former president, showed in raw and emotional detail how perilously close the invaders had come to destroying the nation’s deep tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power after Trump had refused to concede the election. Rallying outside the White House, he unleashed a mob of supporters to “fight like hell” for him at the Capitol just as Congress was certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. As hundreds stormed the building, some in tactical gear engaging in bloody combat with police, lawmakers fled for their lives. Five people died.

The verdict, on a vote of 57-43, is all but certain to influence not only the former president’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors. Seven Republicans joined all Democrats to convict, but it was far from the two-third threshold required.

The outcome after the uprising leaves unresolved the nation’s wrenching divisions over Trump’s brand of politics that led to the most violent domestic attack on one of America’s three branches of government.

Trump, unrepentant, welcomed his second impeachment acquittal and said his movement “has only just begun.” He slammed the trial as “yet another phase of the greatest witch hunt in the history of our Country.”

Though he was acquitted of the sole charge of incitement of insurrection , it was easily the largest number of senators to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty of an impeachment count of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Even after voting to acquit, the Republican leader Mitch McConnell condemned the former president as “practically and morally responsible” for the insurrection. McConnell contended Trump could not be convicted because he was gone from the White House.

The nearly weeklong trial has delivered a grim and graphic narrative of the riot and its consequences in ways that senators, most of whom fled for their own safety that day, acknowledge they are still coming to grips with.

House prosecutors have argued that Trump’s was the “inciter in chief” stoking a months-long campaign with an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims they called the “big lie” that unleashed the mob. Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

The senators, announcing their votes from their desks in the very chamber the mob had ransacked, were not only jurors but also witnesses. Only by watching the graphic videos — rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the January certification tally — did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos.

Many senators kept their votes closely held until the final moments on Saturday, particularly the Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular. Most of them ultimately voted to acquit, doubting whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response.

Impeachment trials are rare, senators meeting as the court of impeachment over a president only four times in the nation’s history, for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump, the only one to be twice impeached. There have been no convictions.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-campaign rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch displayed in graphic videos of the siege that laid bare the unexpected vulnerability of the democratic system.

At the same time, this year’s trial carried similar warnings from the prosecutors that Trump must be held accountable because he has shown repeatedly he has no bounds. Left unchecked, he will further test the norms of civic behavior, even now that he is out of office still commanding loyal supporters, they said.

How many of these sham trials have you won again? Forget it I can count on no hands.
WINNING

One: NY fraud Case ($454.2 million)
Two: E Jean Carroll Round 1 ($5 million)
Three: E Jean Carroll Round 2 ($83.3 million)

WINNING.