What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

fishonjazz said:
Trump sure doesn't like America as much as I do. I think America is awesome. I love my life. Im extremely happy. Trump on the other hand.........Former president presented a dark portrait of the United States. He called it a "failing" nation, beset by "terrorists" and immigrants from "mental asylums" pouring over the U.S.-Mexico border. Everything's a mess.

Maybe he should move.
Click to expand...
Love it or leave it, right?

I hear Russia is pretty awesome.
 
More MAGA (falsely) playing the victim:

“The Communist Democrats tried to shut down my book signing,” Greene said in a video posted late Friday to X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “They lost!” So she says the communist democrats tried to shut down her book signing.

What actually happened:
The Georgia lawmaker was responding to the news that the Westgate Resort refused to host the signing. The venue, located in Kissimmee, Fla., claimed it was “not made aware” of the purpose of the event.
“Please be advised that Westgate was not made aware of the purpose of this event when we were approached to host a book signing,” the resort said in an emailed statement. “This event has been cancelled and is no longer taking place at our resort.” Does she think the Westgate Resort is a communist democrat? If so, then its very strange that she would want to hold a book signing there.

MAGA sure do play the victim card a lot.
 
str8line said:
Trump keeps saying crazier and crazier **** and his poll numbers aren't suffering. When is he going to just come out and say grab your gun and kill for me.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins I am going to Canada.
















Also, if Biden wins, I'm going to Canada.

This is not a political statement, just letting everyone know where I'll be vacationing later this year.
 
str8line said:
Trump keeps saying crazier and crazier **** and his poll numbers aren't suffering. When is he going to just come out and say grab your gun and kill for me.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with DougJBalloon on twitter? His parodies are just so accurate. The media will find ways to both sides this when it happens.

Trump loses in Nov 2024: “Patriots! Get your guns ready! We’re going to Washington to fight! We’re going to have trial by combat! You have to fight or you won’t have a country ever again! Kill the vermin!”

Biden: “I’m humbled to win reelection and promise to dedicate my final four years of public service to uniting this country. We are all Americans, blue or red, we’re all citizens of the greatest country on earth.”

NY Times: “Trump and Biden disagree over direction of country.”
 

Former President Donald Trump's attorney on Tuesday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and couldn't be prosecuted for it — unless Congress impeached and convicted that commander in chief first.

Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it.

"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said.

"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said.

Then Pan took it a step further.

"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six."

"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off.

"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said.

Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again.

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.


So basically trumps lawyers believe that it would have been ok if trump ordered the assassination of biden. Then trump could simply resign right after and could not be prosecuted since he was never impeached by the house and convicted by the senate.
 
Last edited:
HR: OK, let me get this straight. You got fired from a top executive job? Then you refused to leave, called your friends to come and vandalize the workplace, and on your way out of the office, you took a lot of the company's confidential documents. When you got caught, you refused to give many of them back. And, now you're re-applying for the same job?
 
www.yahoo.com

Letters to the Editor: If you think Trump deserves to be on the ballot, read the Colorado court opinion

Reading commentary saying Trump deserves to be on the ballot, you'd think the Colorado Supreme Court hadn't answered exactly why the 14th Amendment disqualifies him.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

It’s difficult to hear non-lawyer journalists and pundits pontificating on questions raised regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. They should read the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion disqualifying former President Trump from the ballot, which provoked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Colorado justices answer all the important questions, each in the affirmative. There are really only three.

First, was there an insurrection? For this you just need to refer to the Webster's dictionary used when the 14th Amendment was adopted.


Second, did Trump “engage" in or "give aid or comfort" to an insurrection? There is voluminous evidence of such, and no criminal conviction is required, as it was not for hundreds of former Civil War participants and sympathizers.

Third, is the president an "officer" of the government? Need I quote the presidential "oath of office"?

Whether this politicized U.S. Supreme Court will follow the Constitution it claims to venerate is a question no one can answer.

Fascists use any means they deem necessary to win, as they must be defeated by any means necessary.

All public offices have grounds for disqualification. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides one such disqualification for the presidency.

The key words applicable to the office of president are someone who "engaged in insurrection ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

If the conduct of the former president on Jan. 6, 2021, does not fit that language, no one else will ever be subject to it, and it will be open season for candidates and incumbents to resort to what Trump did.
 
www.yahoo.com

19 GOP Former Members Of Congress Issue Stark Call To Courts On Trump

Their open letter warned of the “existential” threat to American democracy.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Nineteen Republican former members of Congress have signed an open letter that calls on the courts to move “as quickly as possible” on Donald Trump’s four criminal cases for the sake of the country.

Trump is “entitled to a fair trial,” but Americans are “entitled to a speedy trial” too, especially before the 2024 election, they said in the message published by The Bulwark.

“This is why we are joining a chorus of voices from both sides of the aisle calling on the courts to ensure that the former president is tried with the speed and dispatch that should attend every criminal prosecution,” the lawmakers added.
 
"It's important to recognise who the witnesses are against Donald Trump. These are not Donald Trump's enemies or opponents, these are not angry Democrats."
"Interestingly, the people we know are likely to be on the witness list are almost exclusively Republicans. Some of them are his own former cabinet members, his former attorney-general, his former vice president.
"I believe the testimony we will see will come from a chorus of Republican voices. It makes it much more difficult for Donald Trump, a fellow Republican, to say 'they're all out to get me'."
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
First, was there an insurrection? For this you just need to refer to the Webster's dictionary used when the 14th Amendment was adopted.


Second, did Trump “engage" in or "give aid or comfort" to an insurrection? There is voluminous evidence of such, and no criminal conviction is required, as it was not for hundreds of former Civil War participants and sympathizers.

Third, is the president an "officer" of the government? Need I quote the presidential "oath of office"?
Click to expand...
The first one is obviously wrong. The second one is likely wrong. The third one is arguably wrong. There is no chance this survives the challenge to the US Supreme Court.

The inconvenient reality is that Trump was President, the head of the Executive Branch. He wan't trying to overthrow himself so it wasn't an insurrection by the definition of what an insurrection was on either January 6, 2021 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was written. I guess the authors forgot to consider time travel that would include efforts to overthrow future presidents in their legislative efforts.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The first one is obviously wrong. The second one is likely wrong. The third one is arguably wrong. There is no chance this survives the challenge to the US Supreme Court.

The inconvenient reality is that Trump was President, the head of the Executive Branch. He wan't trying to overthrow himself so it wasn't an insurrection by the definition of what an insurrection was on either January 6, 2021 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was written. I guess the authors forgot to consider time travel that would include efforts to overthrow future presidents in their legislative efforts.
Click to expand...
He was trying to overthrow congress. He didn't want to lose. He definitely wasn't trying to overthrow himself, on that we agree. Had he won the election none of this would have happened. He was trying to overthrow the will of the american people as well.
 
It’s difficult to hear non-lawyer journalists and pundits pontificating on questions raised regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The writer is talking about folks such as Al here. I will keep listening to the lawyers and experts in law. Hell, even trumps own attorneys dont try to argue whether trump violated the 14th ammendment or not. They simply think he has immunity due to being president.
 
fishonjazz said:
He was trying to overthrow congress.
Click to expand...
LOL. Uh, no. The only office Trump cared about was President and he wanted to be in that office two weeks into the future. Also, overthrowing the will of the people isn't a thing. I know you really, really, really want that square peg to go into the round hole but this whole thing is legally specious and won't survive the challenge to the Supreme Court.
 
fishonjazz said:
It’s difficult to hear non-lawyer journalists and pundits pontificating on questions raised regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Actual legal scholars have done deep into this issue and the arguments against it are pretty bombproof but they're over 120 characters so you won't read them.

Here is the legal opinion of a constitutional lawyer who hates Trump and originally believed the Fourteenth did apply but subsequently changed his mind because technically the President of the United States is not an officer due to being elected while officers are appointed.

Trump is loathsome, but because of a technicality in the drafting of the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Clause does not apply to Trump. The Disqualification Clause applies to four categories of people who have previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have given "aid or comfort" to an "insurrection": 1) officers of the United States; 2) members of Congress; 3) members of state legislatures; and 4) state "executive or judicial officers." On January 6, 2021, Trump was obviously not: 1) a member of Congress; 2) a member of a state legislature; or 3) a state executive or judicial official. That leaves only the question of whether former President Trump was "an officer of the United States."

This is a harder question than it may appear because the term "officer of the United States" seems colloquially to apply to the president. The presidency is an "office," and former president George Washington called himself an officer of the United States. The Senate in debating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was of the view that the president is an officer of the United States. In my foolish youth, I once argued mistakenly in print that the President is an "Officer of the United States." Thirty-three years of academic research and writing on the presidency has persuaded me that the words "officer of the United States" are a legal term of art, which does not apply to the President.

The Commission Clause of Article II, Section 3 imposes a duty on the President: "he "shall" i.e. must "Commission all the Officers of the United States." This is done by the President signing a document called a commission formally appointing executive and judicial branch officials to their offices. No President has ever, either before or after, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment commissioned himself. Why? Because the President is not technically "an officer of the United States."… Forty-six Presidents of the United States have construed the Commissions Clause as not obligating them to commission themselves because presidents are not technically "officers of the United States" all of whom are appointed not elected. (emphasis Calabresi’s)

Which brings us to the Appointments Clause of Article II: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:". Here again the phrase: "Officer of the United States" is used to describe appointed persons and not elected persons like the Members of Congress or the President. The Appointments Clause thus bolsters the implication of the Commissions Clause. Presidents are not, technically, Officers of the United States" as that phrase is used as a legal term of art in the Constitution. (emphasis again Calabresi’s)

Finally, consider Article II, Section 4. It provides that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Note that the President and Vice President are mentioned –alone and separately from – "all civil Officers of the United States." That is in part to make clear that the President is impeachable, unlike the King of Great Britain, but it is also because the President and Vice President being elected like Members of Congress, are not technically "Officers of the United States."
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
LOL. Uh, no. The only office Trump cared about was President and he wanted to be in that office two weeks into the future. Also, overthrowing the will of the people isn't a thing. I know you really, really, really want that square peg to go into the round hole but this whole thing is legally specious and won't survive the challenge to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
So why do you think he was going to court all the time? Why did he say stop the steal so often? Why did he call people and ask them to find non existent votes? Why did he send alternate electors?
You don't think he was doing all that to try to stay president? It's because he was trying to overthrow something that was happening at a future time.

Your time travel idea is so dumb. Like I can totally plan to kill someone in the future and not get charged with anything right?

You trumpers are so weird

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
Actual legal scholars have done deep into this issue and the arguments against it are pretty bombproof but they're over 120 characters so you won't read them.

Here is the legal opinion of a constitutional lawyer who hates Trump and originally believed the Fourteenth did apply but subsequently changed his mind because technically the President of the United States is not an officer due to being elected while officers are appointed.

Trump is loathsome, but because of a technicality in the drafting of the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Clause does not apply to Trump. The Disqualification Clause applies to four categories of people who have previously taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and have given "aid or comfort" to an "insurrection": 1) officers of the United States; 2) members of Congress; 3) members of state legislatures; and 4) state "executive or judicial officers." On January 6, 2021, Trump was obviously not: 1) a member of Congress; 2) a member of a state legislature; or 3) a state executive or judicial official. That leaves only the question of whether former President Trump was "an officer of the United States."

This is a harder question than it may appear because the term "officer of the United States" seems colloquially to apply to the president. The presidency is an "office," and former president George Washington called himself an officer of the United States. The Senate in debating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was of the view that the president is an officer of the United States. In my foolish youth, I once argued mistakenly in print that the President is an "Officer of the United States." Thirty-three years of academic research and writing on the presidency has persuaded me that the words "officer of the United States" are a legal term of art, which does not apply to the President.

The Commission Clause of Article II, Section 3 imposes a duty on the President: "he "shall" i.e. must "Commission all the Officers of the United States." This is done by the President signing a document called a commission formally appointing executive and judicial branch officials to their offices. No President has ever, either before or after, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment commissioned himself. Why? Because the President is not technically "an officer of the United States."… Forty-six Presidents of the United States have construed the Commissions Clause as not obligating them to commission themselves because presidents are not technically "officers of the United States" all of whom are appointed not elected. (emphasis Calabresi’s)

Which brings us to the Appointments Clause of Article II: "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:". Here again the phrase: "Officer of the United States" is used to describe appointed persons and not elected persons like the Members of Congress or the President. The Appointments Clause thus bolsters the implication of the Commissions Clause. Presidents are not, technically, Officers of the United States" as that phrase is used as a legal term of art in the Constitution. (emphasis again Calabresi’s)

Finally, consider Article II, Section 4. It provides that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Note that the President and Vice President are mentioned –alone and separately from – "all civil Officers of the United States." That is in part to make clear that the President is impeachable, unlike the King of Great Britain, but it is also because the President and Vice President being elected like Members of Congress, are not technically "Officers of the United States."
Click to expand...
If you believe this to be true (that the 14 amendment can't be used in trumps case simply due to a technicality in wording in regards to officer) then it's weird that you responded just a while ago with this:

"The first one is obviously wrong. The second one is likely wrong. The third one is arguably wrong. There is no chance this survives the challenge to the US Supreme Court.

The inconvenient reality is that Trump was President, the head of the Executive Branch. He wan't trying to overthrow himself so it wasn't an insurrection by the definition of what an insurrection was on either January 6, 2021 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was written. I guess the authors forgot to consider time travel that would include efforts to overthrow future presidents in their legislative efforts."


Should have just said that presidents can engage in insurrections according to the Constitution. That is what you and that constitutional lawyer are arguing.

You trumpers are really strange.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top