New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The SCOTUS should recall that Congress already found that Trump incited an insurrection

It's pretty hard to "revolt" against anything with pepper spray and hocky sticks...
While Christian Nation "serve the Pope or die" SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July Klues Klucks duh Klans "what is 9/11 ?" Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom of why Federal Lynching Klues Klucks duh Klans churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement thieving National Archives US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists receive SCOTUS granted standing in their holy trinity why Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations where Klues Klucks duh Klans need no cross to be way too dang lily brilliant white without that human reproduction medical pseudoscience immaculate virgin Mary son of Allah Jesus the Christ conception for suicidal super ego homicidal human farming with a US District Court of Nazington to protect & serve thieving National Archives purchased US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glorys - old testaments - absentee voting ballots arsonists as "one nation under God with equal justice under law" not so master race......
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It's pretty hard to "revolt" against anything with pepper spray and hocky sticks...
Reaĺly? Over 100 cops needing medical care. Congress forced to stop the count of electors and evacuate....

The occupation of the capitol only needed to take long enough fot Trump's illegal electors to be submitted.
It's pretty hard to "revolt" against anything with pepper spray and hocky sticks...
Really? Over 100 cops injured. Congress evacuated. They only needed to delay the count long enough to insert Trump's illegal electors.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You keep citing the definition of "sedition" and say it is "proof" of "insurrection. That, of course, is absurd. They are not the same thing.

As the founder and leader of the group, former Montana attorney Stewart Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy. Concerning the criminal proceedings against Rhodes, the Department of Justice (DOJ) proved that he conspired to “oppose by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of presidential power by Jan. 20, 2021."

The DOJ also pointed to the following as indications of Rhodes' conspiracy:


  • Since early 2020, he and group members chatted by encrypted platforms about traveling to the Capitol to engage in the activities on January 6, 2021.
  • In these messages, members of the group discussed bringing weapons to attack the Capitol while they also discussed and planned violence against various public officials.
At the same time, attention has been drawn to how Rhodes called upon former President Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. It has also come out that the former lawyer also threatened to hang Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.


Do you have any proof that Trump participated in those activities? Nah, you demand "proof" from everyone else but you are (obviously) exempt from this requirement. So you have no proof that Trump participated in the "seditious conspiracy" surrounding the events of January 6, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that he is guilty of participating in a (non-existent) "insurrection." Yer a hoot...
Who invited the mob to DC? Would there have been a riot if not for Trump's wild rally tweet?
Would the mob have attacked the capitol if not for Trump telling them to stop the steal by fighting like hell?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
How could he be charged with "insurrection" if nobody else was, you know, charged with insurrection? Was it a one man coup?
 
Who invited the mob to DC? Would there have been a riot if not for Trump's wild rally tweet?
Would the mob have attacked the capitol if not for Trump telling them to stop the steal by fighting like hell?
.Just business as usual to Christiananality "serve the Pope or die" pedophilia of this Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July "what is 9/11 ?" as HA MAS ! Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom October 6 Islam "death to the infidels" as "who killed JFK ?" after being released from a hospital as the Supreme Swastika up Uranus kangaroo court rhetorical "what is 9/11" after Federal Lynching Klues Klucks duh Klans thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists enforcement of "serve the Pope or die" baptize thine eyes by urinations which led to missing watching the assassination of JFK at SCOTUS. Way too dang lily brilliant white suicidal super egos of sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming national religion as medical pseudoscience human reproduction immaculate virgin Mary son of Allah Jesus the Christ conception more perfect union to laws of physics pseudoscience flaming flying chariot Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom....
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I'm not surprised by your effort to criminalize free speech (it's what authoritarians do), but did he, you know, actually conspire with them to attack the Capitol?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Who invited the mob to DC? Would there have been a riot if not for Trump's wild rally tweet?
Would the mob have attacked the capitol if not for Trump telling them to stop the steal by fighting like hell?
So if you invite your brother in law to a family gathering and he kills someone, are you guilty of murder?

The courts are very vary of criminalizing free speech (which is, you know, enshrined in the Bill of Rights). I see you do not share that reluctance. Once you people are in charge of what speech is illegal, we begin living under tyranny.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So if you invite your brother in law to a family gathering and he kills someone, are you guilty of murder?

The courts are very vary of criminalizing free speech (which is, you know, enshrined in the Bill of Rights). I see you do not share that reluctance. Once you people are in charge of what speech is illegal, we begin living under tyranny.
If I spent an hour telling him lies and that the victim is destroying his home and family and he'd better fight like hell or he won't have a family anymore...then what? How about if the victim is a minor and in my care...and I sit and watch for hours as he is beaten to death?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
As I posted before...the amendment does not say someone cannot run...so if they run and win then it would be up to congress to allow the candidate to take office with a 2/3rds vote.
That’s blending Section 5 with Section 3. They are two different sections, and the history does not provide any support for the proposition that they should be linked in such a fashion. It’s a “re-write” of Section 3.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
That’s blending Section 5 with Section 3. They are two different sections, and the history does not provide any support for the proposition that they should be linked in such a fashion. It’s a “re-write” of Section 3.
Reread section 3. Where does it mention being a candidate?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Reread section 3. Where does it mention being a candidate?
It doesn’t. But that has nothing to do with whether Section 3 and Section 5 are linked in the way you suggest. They are not.

As to the separate issue you raise, prohibitions against candidacies are always raised at the time a candidate seeks access to the ballot. For example, the constitutional requirements that a candidate be at least 35 and a natural born citizen. Allowing people to run when they’re constitutionally ineligible to hold the office would create needless chaos. Enforcing such things when candidates seek access to the ballot makes eminent sense and is consistent with the intent of the drafters. Deferring it makes no sense.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bizarre. Do you deny the points I already made? No...you just argue that the president, having lost the election, was entitled to use his right to free speech to have his lawyer develop a plan to override the vote (Eastman) and then have his campaign people spend millions to gather a crowd to DC to implement a plan to halt the count and to get republicans to appoint themselves as electors.

You seem to argue that there is no crime committed in inciting the riot. You are ignoring the evidence.

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It doesn’t. But that has nothing to do with whether Section 3 and Section 5 are linked in the way you suggest. They are not.

As to the separate issue you raise, prohibitions against candidacies are always raised at the time a candidate seeks access to the ballot. For example, the constitutional requirements that a candidate be at least 35 and a natural born citizen. Allowing people to run when they’re constitutionally ineligible to hold the office would create needless chaos. Enforcing such things when candidates seek access to the ballot makes eminent sense and is consistent with the intent of the drafters. Deferring it makes no sense.
The one case I looked into was a candidate elected to Congress who had been a member of the Confederate legislature. He won his election but was denied his seat in Congress. The chaos comes from 50 states implementing their own means of enforcement. So what if a few states deny Trump a place on the ballot and he still wins?
 

EatTheRich

President
It doesn’t. But that has nothing to do with whether Section 3 and Section 5 are linked in the way you suggest. They are not.

As to the separate issue you raise, prohibitions against candidacies are always raised at the time a candidate seeks access to the ballot. For example, the constitutional requirements that a candidate be at least 35 and a natural born citizen. Allowing people to run when they’re constitutionally ineligible to hold the office would create needless chaos. Enforcing such things when candidates seek access to the ballot makes eminent sense and is consistent with the intent of the drafters. Deferring it makes no sense.
Letting ineligible candidates be on the ballot is a free speech issue. I myself voted multiple times for a presidential candidate born in Nicaragua, whose running mate one year was under 35, and protested my state not including them on the ballot. Their party deliberately nominated them to protest the discriminatory provisions of the constitution.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
The one case I looked into was a candidate elected to Congress who had been a member of the Confederate legislature. He won his election but was denied his seat in Congress. The chaos comes from 50 states implementing their own means of enforcement. So what if a few states deny Trump a place on the ballot and he still wins?
Section 3 does not give individual states the right to do it unilaterally. The SCOTUS reviews such state decisions and makes the ultimate determination. At least that’s what should happen but it sounds like they will duck their obligation and punt.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Letting ineligible candidates be on the ballot is a free speech issue. I myself voted multiple times for a presidential candidate born in Nicaragua, whose running mate one year was under 35, and protested my state not including them on the ballot. Their party deliberately nominated them to protest the discriminatory provisions of the constitution.
There is no “free speech” right to violate the Constitution.
 
There is no “free speech” right to violate the Constitution.
Leave it to those crooks on Capital Hill Christiananality pedophilia of SCOTUS Christian Nation "serve the Pope or die" Mengele Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations sending a Washington, D.C. born USA citizen back to a Washington, D.C. hospital to miss their assassination of JFK as sending the same Washington, D.C. born USA citizen back to a Washington, D.C. US Navy Hospital missing the killing of a US Navy doctor & Federal Lynching Klues Klucks duh Klans thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists just as those Federal Lynching Klues Klucks duh Klans thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists Christian Nation SCOTUS thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists baptize thine eyes by urinations Mengele "Angel of Death" Rehnquist rhetorical "what is 9/11 ?" where obtaining medical care of Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom is "one nation under God with equal justice under law" for George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens where once is an accident, twice is a coincidence as there are no coincidences while thrice is just business Islamidiotocracy as usual .....
 
Top