Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Indeed it is. As all governing bodies.

a reply to: Mahogany

I had a really nice post ready for another thread which got closed right as I hit the post button. Your thread came first.

On page 14 of the pdf.

In any event, though these statutes do not even purport to sunset Section Three for the future, they do prompt us to consider the interesting question of Congress’s constitutional power: What if they did purport to sunset Section Three for the future? Is Congress’s constitutional power to remove Section Three’s disqualification general and prospective, letting it remove Section Three’s disqualification once and for all, including for future situations? We think not

I was getting a bit worried about those amnesty acts of Congress of 1872 and 1898, until I read the paragraph I quote.

In any case argued by these lawyers, this paragraph should be highlighted quite prominently.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Im sorry but you are only fooling yourself if you think Trump would turn down dirty money..

You realize him a Rudy were asking one million dollars for pardons, right?

Do you think Donald is not getting anything out of the $2 billion+ that Jared Kusner and Ivanka have got from the Saudis?

I can list a lot more shady Trump dealings.

This is too funny! Why does it feel like retaliation for pointing out Garland broke statute to appoint Weis as special counsel? The timing of it all is too much!

a reply to: jrod

Whatever, just don't act blindsided when things don't go the way your MSM sources say they will.
It's not pretty.

a reply to: Mahogany

something else that just occurred to me. even if it was possible they can't use the 14th because trump is not charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion.nor has any of the 6 "unnamed " co-conspirators.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Im sorry but you are only fooling yourself if you think Trump would turn down dirty money..

You realize him a Rudy were asking one million dollars for pardons, right?

Do you think Donald is not getting anything out of the $2 billion+ that Jared Kusner and Ivanka have got from the Saudis?

I can list a lot more shady Trump dealings.

Trust me no Billionaire is Clean I'm not fool enough to think they are.

Trump was exposing the dirty money to Clean house of his opponents I have no delusions that Trump was doing it altruistically .

You realize him a Rudy were asking one million dollars for pardons, right?

I will wait Patiently for you to Provide proof of this

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Trump will NEVER be President again, that is certain.

The GOP does not want him to be their candidate. There will be a lot more dirt about Trump coming out in the months ahead.

And Matt Geatz was about to be arrested a couple years ago. You aren't good at all with your predictions. But they do make me smile.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

I will wait Patiently for you to Provide proof of this

best pack a lunch.

a reply to: network dude

I was amazed Gaetz was not charged. He still is a dirt bag, despite not having enough evidence to prosecute however I do think DeSantis protected him to possibly protect himself.

We will know in 15 months if I am right about Trump.

Trump lost a significant amount if the Republican voters, and almost all independents. Because of this he will never get enough votes to win the general election. At best he might get 35% and that is being generous.

Most Trump cheerleaders live in a bubble and believe he us much more popular than he really is

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

Most Trump cheerleaders live in a bubble and believe he us much more popular than he really is

Most Trump haters live in a bubble and believe he is much less popular than he is. See how that works?

And it doesn't take a Trump cheerleader to see that if you think with any honesty. Remember "Trump will never be president" statements made by all the same Trump haters living in their collective bubbles.

a reply to: jrod

And yet for some reason tiktok decided to ban this video - why? Too contrary to the narrative?

Twitter

originally posted by: dandandat2
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded something? You dont say.

Yeah, conservative in the mold of Romney, Graham, McCain, Ryan.
Leftists and dems are such GD babyish liars 24 / 7.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

I was amazed Gaetz was not charged. He still is a dirt bag, despite not having enough evidence to prosecute however I do think DeSantis protected him to possibly protect himself.

We will know in 15 months if I am right about Trump.

Trump lost a significant amount if the Republican voters, and almost all independents. Because of this he will never get enough votes to win the general election. At best he might get 35% and that is being generous.

Most Trump cheerleaders live in a bubble and believe he us much more popular than he really is

it's good you realize your track record isn't good. But the way this all works is the most popular guy in the party wins the nod. Right now, even if you scream at the sky, it's Trump by a long shot.

And in order for him to be removed from the ticket for causing an insurrection, I think he first has to be found guilty of causing an insurrection, and to date, nobody has proved it was an insurrection, and not a riot. And we haven't even investigated the scummy side of that event. Just the side PigLosi wanted the public to see, with help from Hollywood.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: jrod

Whatever, just don't act blindsided when things don't go the way your MSM sources say they will.
It's not pretty.

Their backup is to scream like babies that it was unfair, after running their mouths like big bad boys for a year.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Mahogany

I had a really nice post ready for another thread which got closed right as I hit the post button. Your thread came first.

On page 14 of the pdf.

In any event, though these statutes do not even purport to sunset Section Three for the future, they do prompt us to consider the interesting question of Congress’s constitutional power: What if they did purport to sunset Section Three for the future? Is Congress’s constitutional power to remove Section Three’s disqualification general and prospective, letting it remove Section Three’s disqualification once and for all, including for future situations? We think not

I was getting a bit worried about those amnesty acts of Congress of 1872 and 1898, until I read the paragraph I quote.

In any case argued by these lawyers, this paragraph should be highlighted quite prominently.

He who builds his whole identity and beliefs on 1800’s laws, often wears poopy pants.
-Sunz Poo, The Fart of War

a reply to: stevieray

Pure irony! (3 years and counting).

"scream like babies that it was unfair".

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Trump will NEVER be President again, that is certain.

The GOP does not want him to be their candidate. There will be a lot more dirt about Trump coming out in the months ahead.

Unfortunately it's the voters that decide the Republican candidate. And as of now it's roughly 50-60% Trump and the rest at 10% or less. The rest are just jockeying for VP and name awareness for 2028. Barring a major disaster Trump will be the Republican candidate. But after the bad taste Biden left in the mouths of the electorate whomever the Democrat candidate is will have their work cut out for them.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Trump will NEVER be President again, that is certain.

The GOP does not want him to be their candidate. There will be a lot more dirt about Trump coming out in the months ahead.

a reply to: RazorV66

Rent free? How much is he getting in donations?