Fmr President TRUMP Says He Will Accept Being Speaker of the House on an Interim Basis.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you know anything about Sydney Powell's resume before she made the grave mistake of teaming up with a very drunk and out of control Rudy Giuliani?

She was the youngest female federal prosecutor and took on outlaw Texas biker gang, the Banditos, in a RICO case. Sent a number of them to federal penitentiary.

She has nerve. She was in the crosshairs of some very bad people in her day.

She is the one player in this that I'm sad got caught up. Sometimes knowing how bad people can be, organized, multi-national, makes you vulnerable to believe stories of other very bad people being organized, multi-national. She walked away and took care of herself when Rudy insisted on doing things his way in chasing down the claims of foreign interference.

I hope she comes out ok in this. She didn't deserve it.

a reply to: JinMI

How many Donald Trump's have been indicted and convicted?

One Donald Trump, 91 and counting indictments.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

How many Donald Trump's have been indicted and convicted?

One Donald Trump, 91 and counting indictments.

K...

Which one of those 91 is a charge for insurrection?

Are you admitting now that his "disability" hinges upon due process now?

Seeing it my way?

a reply to: JinMI

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

That bolded section disagrees with your logic. I'd say Trump definitely aided people that have since been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

As I said though, there's arguments to be made for either side.

If we look at earlier SCOTUS rulings, the current SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump based on the fact that they don't consider the President to be an Officer of the United States.

At the same time, these cases are going to be decided at the state level and the current Court likes to lean into state autonomy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RazorV66

Who exactly is “enemies of The People of the USA”?

According to Trump, it's the media, liberal Jews, California, New York and the Deep State et al! Who'd I miss?

You are not doing yourself or your Komrades any favors with this line of nonsense.

Who do you think Trump gave “aid and comfort” to?

a reply to: JinMI

Again, I say he violated his oath of office. Every single one of the 91 charges represent a violation of his oath of office.

Are you admitting now that his "disability" hinges upon due process now?

Who's due process? They hoodlums that got convicted, that testified they did it because Trump told them to? Trump's conduct triggered his disability. Your nagging doubt about the reality of attempted "insurrection" can be relieved now that we have actual convictions.

Again, Trump's life, liberty and property don't depend on him being president. Those convicts lost their liberty and property due to Trump's violations of his oath of office. His privilege to serve has been revoked by the 14th Amendment, section 3.

a reply to: Threadbare

That bolded section disagrees with your logic. I'd say Trump definitely aided people that have since been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

As I said though, there's arguments to be made for either side.

Does it? I disagree.

How will we settle this? What mechanic exists to remedy this disagreement?

If we look at earlier SCOTUS rulings, the current SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump based on the fact that they don't consider the President to be an Officer of the United States.

The POTUS is the head of the executive branch. Article II:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Despite jurisdiction, the same argument will apply if it's some semblance of the disqualification clause.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Again, I say he violated his oath of office. Every single one of the 91 charges represent a violation of his oath of office.

I disagree, now what?

Again, Trump's life, liberty and property don't depend on him being president.

He's not president, but running for president. You wish to keep him from doing so by depriving him of his right to do so without due process.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

That bolded section disagrees with your logic. I'd say Trump definitely aided people that have since been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

As I said though, there's arguments to be made for either side.

If we look at earlier SCOTUS rulings, the current SCOTUS would rule in favor of Trump based on the fact that they don't consider the President to be an Officer of the United States.

At the same time, these cases are going to be decided at the state level and the current Court likes to lean into state autonomy.

Who has been convicted if seditious conspiracy, aided by Trump?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: nugget1

He removed the debt ceiling until 2025, giving Biden free reign to spend as much as he wanted. That makes working on a budget kind of pointless, IMHO.

I must be missing something here. If McCarthy was going to allow for the debt ceiling to be removed until 2025, allowing Biden free reign to spend,Wouldn't the Democrat Representatives want this? Wouldn't they want to keep him there to get this favorable to them action ? Knowing of course that hes replacement could likely not be as favorable to them? Wouldn't they want to vote in such a was as to keep him as Speaker? instead they did not vote that way.

McCarthy already did what he was supposed to do; the Dems. have no use for him now.
As I stated earlier, the chaos in the House makes for good PD to vilify Republicans and divert attention from the Biden scandel.

There is no debt ceiling until 2025; Biden has free reign to continue 'building back better'....cough, cough.

The legislation suspends - in essence, temporarily removes - the federal government's borrowing limit through Jan. 1, 2025. The timeline allows Biden and Congress to set aside the politically risky issue until after the November 2024 presidential election.

[www.reuters.com...]

NOTHING happens in DC by accident.

a reply to: JinMI

I've already said it will be decided by the courts. I've also said the reason for that is because the section is vague and doesn't state a criminal conviction is required.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Really anyone at J6 that has been convicted of seditious conspiracy considering Trump intentionally withheld National Guard reinforcements for hours. We can also point to the communications between the Proud Boys and Trump's team in the run up to the event.

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: tanstaafl
How about the independents? How about some Republicans too. Some Republicans think this is a witch hunt, but many don't. Almost none of the independents think this or they wouldn't be independent, they would register Republican.

You obviously have the pulse of the woke wack-jobs.

The vast majority of both know this is a witch hunt. Hell, even many demwits now freely acknowledge this reality. The polls are even unable to hide this, as rigged as those are. As for the RINOs that claim otherwise - well, good riddance to the trash.

even though you're insulting

Pot, meet kettle.

you're confusing different sections of the 14th Amendment. One applies to due process, which applies to criminal law, and Section 3 applies to public office eligibility. They are not to be conflated.

You are the one who is confused.

Are you seriously suggesting that the act of insurrection is not a criminal act? Seriously?

There is one and only one rule that applies to determining guilt, and that is the rule of law.

For one to be actually be guilty of insurrection, one must be found guilty by a court of law. Period. End of debate.

One may violate their oath of office and make themselves ineligible to hold office again, but they may not actually get criminally charged for that offense.

You are obviously wrong, except in the legend of your woke TDS group-think minds.

Section 3 of the 14th is self-enforcing,
How do some words on a piece of paper enforce anything?

By your argument, every clause of the Constitution is self-enforcing. This is patently absurd on its face - except to one blinded by TDS.

the same way age eligibility is.

One's age is an established fact and a matter of public record. Apples and space monkeys.

You don't need to go to court to be convicted of being 34 to be ineligible.

Wow... you actually said something we can agree on.

Same thing applies if you violate your oath of office or worse.

The problem is, words on paper cannot make a determination of whether or not someone violates their oath of office.

If what you said was true, then 95+% of all politicians in the US would be in jail or worse.

But please, by all means, show some real world examples of this clause being self-enforced.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Again, I say he violated his oath of office. Every single one of the 91 charges represent a violation of his oath of office.

I disagree, now what?

Again, Trump's life, liberty and property don't depend on him being president.

He's not president, but running for president. You wish to keep him from doing so by depriving him of his right to do so without due process.

He can run. He just can't "sit". ...In my opinion, according to what I've read from legal scholars about the 14th Amendment.

Of course, not everyone is on the same page with this, and I've taken a very pragmatic stance in this thread. As have you.
However, I do think that this question will keep playing out over the next year, and either Congress or SCOTUS will ultimately have to resolve the issue.

If Donald Trump was to run for Speaker of the House, it would play out a lot sooner, and, I think that would be a good thing for everybody concerned, especially voters.

October 18, 2023

Jordan Loses Another Round...apnews.com...

I think we're nearing the point where Donald Trump said he would be temporary House Speaker, if asked?

a reply to: carewemust

I just received this E-Mail from Mr. Trump .......


Zanti ,

It’s not much of a secret that the Left doesn’t like me very much.

But I think the one thing that bothers the Left the most is that they cannot break me.

Even after illegal indictments, arrests, impeachments, a mugshot, lawsuits, a threat of 1,000 years in prison, attempting to frame me as a traitor, a sham trial, and more trials to come, my spirits are honestly higher than ever before.

The Left wants to crush our hope and break our spirit. They want to rob us of our joy.

But we can never let them!

The truth is: hope costs you nothing.

Your faith is the one thing no one can ever take from you.

That’s why you will never see me cower. I will never blink in the face of the Left’s tyranny. I will always stand tall and remain resolute in our mission to save America.

We all know America is in a very dark place – and that’s putting it nicely. It would be very easy to say that our country is doomed and all hope is lost.

But I will NEVER give up on America!

America is the greatest country in history – and I believe it’s our hardworking, innovative, compassionate, and courageous PEOPLE that make it great.

And on November 5, 2024, I have faith that the great American patriots who are the backbone of our country will band together to SAVE AMERICA once and for all

So, my question to you is: do YOU have faith that America can be saved?

If you do, please make a contribution of even $1 to SAVE AMERICA in 2024.

(Of course, if you are doing poorly right now due to the crook in the White House, then don’t even think about donating. But promise me this – you will NEVER give up hope on America!)



Hmm... Nothing there I Disagree with . If he he Served as Speaker for a Limited time , I would have no Problem with that . The Man Speaks Truth .