|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 24, 2023 17:28:35 GMT -8
You need to re-read the amendment. Does it say that a person should be prohibited from holding office or running for President if they may or may have not committed rebellion? Read it indeed! His conduct on January 6th meets the definition, pretty clearly. I wouldn't worry about it, though. He has four indictments to deal with first. |
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Aug 24, 2023 18:18:02 GMT -8
People are suspended from all sorts of occupations/jobs on mere accusation...Trump has 91 felony counts...a reasonable person would say that disqualifies anybody...especially for the job of president of the U.S....nothing unusual or Banana Republic about that...... Where am I? Where is the presumption of innocence? In the cases where people are relieved from jobs based on accusation alone, they have due process available to them and can contest and overturn those actions if the accusation is unfounded. I wouldn't put it past some would be Banana Republic Judge from making the claim that Trump can't run but it wouldn't survive the due process owed Trump if they did (as things stand now, anyhow). It would be a Banana Republic move for political purposes alone, not a legitimate legal move. Does Trump not have due process...I have a mug shot that says he does...he also has the right for a speedy trial...and he is represented by his own counsel...the prosecutor says October is cool with her...that's a whole year before the election...he has plenty of time to vigorously defend himself...in full view and in front of an American audience...nothing Banana about that...lastly...a person accused of child molestation is legally presumed innocent...doesn't mean he is...so just in case... the state wouldn't allow him/her to continue to run a child-care center...let alone a nation...until the process has ran its course. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 24, 2023 21:16:36 GMT -8
Does it say that a person should be prohibited from holding office or running for President if they may or may have not committed rebellion? Read it indeed! His conduct on January 6th meets the definition, pretty clearly. I wouldn't worry about it, though. He has four indictments to deal with first. Exactly! Four indictments with none including charges for violating 18 US Code 2383. Apparently Special Prosecuter Smith doesn't agree with you either. Dreams and facts are two different things. And asking Judges to hand out legal determinations based on dreams is Banana Republic ville and Larry the Loon knows it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to defend his idiot notion of not needing a legal finding of facts to apply the Constitutional clause that relies entirely on those facts. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 24, 2023 21:46:01 GMT -8
His conduct on January 6th meets the definition, pretty clearly. I wouldn't worry about it, though. He has four indictments to deal with first. Exactly! Four indictments with none including charges for violating 18 US Code 2383. Apparently Special Prosecuter Smith doesn't agree with you either. Dreams and facts are two different things. And asking Judges to hand out legal determinations based on dreams is Banana Republic ville and Larry the Loon knows it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to defend his idiot notion of not needing a legal finding of facts to apply the Constitutional clause that relies entirely on those facts. 2383 can still be charged in a superseding indictment. Smith is likely waiting on a civil opinion in Blassingame v. Trump to determine the clarification of Trump's "official duties" as the president on January 6th. The fact it hasn't been charged is not surprising as a result, while this case is still in the appellate system. Ultimately, I don't think he charges 2383 because the simplicity of the case is in the other charges already filed. And once again, there is no legal requirement to discharge the 14th Amendment as it pertains to Trump here. He doesn't need to be charged with 2383 for the disqualification clause to be utilized. Any action taken to disrupt the natural transfer of power, combined with an attack against an authority or body of Congress, meets the textbook definition of insurrection. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 24, 2023 21:57:55 GMT -8
People are suspended from all sorts of occupations/jobs on mere accusation...Trump has 91 felony counts...a reasonable person would say that disqualifies anybody...especially for the job of president of the U.S....nothing unusual or Banana Republic about that...... Where am I? Where is the presumption of innocence? In the cases where people are relieved from jobs based on accusation alone, they have due process available to them and can contest and overturn those actions if the accusation is unfounded. I wouldn't put it past some would be Banana Republic Judge from making the claim that Trump can't run but it wouldn't survive the due process owed Trump if they did (as things stand now, anyhow). It would be a Banana Republic move for political purposes alone, not a legitimate legal move. Well I'm sure that it would be ruled on by the Supreme Court. In effect, they would become judge and jury to determine the truthfulness of the accusation - and any convictions/arrests, and/or evidence found during the criminal trials can be used by the Supreme Court in their ruling. The real question is, what would be the standard to determine if he would be disqualified? Conviction of a federal crime related to insurrection (criminal court standard - beyond a reasonable doubt)? Or just a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard - more likely then not that he did it)? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 25, 2023 1:38:33 GMT -8
Exactly! Four indictments with none including charges for violating 18 US Code 2383. Apparently Special Prosecuter Smith doesn't agree with you either. Dreams and facts are two different things. And asking Judges to hand out legal determinations based on dreams is Banana Republic ville and Larry the Loon knows it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to defend his idiot notion of not needing a legal finding of facts to apply the Constitutional clause that relies entirely on those facts. 2383 can still be charged in a superseding indictment. Smith is likely waiting on a civil opinion in Blassingame v. Trump to determine the clarification of Trump's "official duties" as the president on January 6th. The fact it hasn't been charged is not surprising as a result, while this case is still in the appellate system. Ultimately, I don't think he charges 2383 because the simplicity of the case is in the other charges already filed. And once again, there is no legal requirement to discharge the 14th Amendment as it pertains to Trump here. He doesn't need to be charged with 2383 for the disqualification clause to be utilized. Any action taken to disrupt the natural transfer of power, combined with an attack against an authority or body of Congress, meets the textbook definition of insurrection. I agree. In a Banana Republic. no legal requirements need to be satisfied on order to deny the rights of a political opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 25, 2023 7:08:51 GMT -8
Where am I? Where is the presumption of innocence? In the cases where people are relieved from jobs based on accusation alone, they have due process available to them and can contest and overturn those actions if the accusation is unfounded. I wouldn't put it past some would be Banana Republic Judge from making the claim that Trump can't run but it wouldn't survive the due process owed Trump if they did (as things stand now, anyhow). It would be a Banana Republic move for political purposes alone, not a legitimate legal move. Well I'm sure that it would be ruled on by the Supreme Court. In effect, they would become judge and jury to determine the truthfulness of the accusation - and any convictions/arrests, and/or evidence found during the criminal trials can be used by the Supreme Court in their ruling. The real question is, what would be the standard to determine if he would be disqualified? Conviction of a federal crime related to insurrection (criminal court standard - beyond a reasonable doubt)? Or just a preponderance of the evidence (civil court standard - more likely then not that he did it)? I think you're overthinking. The Supreme Court would likely uphold any lower court ruling. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 25, 2023 8:33:57 GMT -8
If you had 'thor regurgitates months-old Fox news "Banana Republic" talking point 3+ times in this thread' on your bingo card, you win!  |
|
