Which U.S. Govt Body Legally Determines if an INSURRECTION Occurred or Not.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

So you agree that all charges against Hunter should be dropped as they were brought forth by a special counsel?

Weiss was confirmed by the Senate......

Oddly enough, he wasn't given SC status....until he was much later than the AG said.

Didn’t the US sanction Venezuela for taking a Presidential candidate off the ballot?

Here ,

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.

I’m no law professor like most of the people on here but that doesn’t even sound like it’s for the President/Ex President

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

I'm claiming that there's nearly 250 years of precedence establishing the authority of special counsels.

Do you believe that the impeachment of Clinton should be revoked as it was the result of an investigation done by a special counsel?

Not saying anything of the kind.

What I am saying is these 3 guys, Meese, Calabresi and Lawson obviously must know what they are doing to attempt something like this.

But you, with a Cracker Jack law degree, are questioning me about it.
Read the damn story and take away what you will from it, then search out the story on a Liberal leaning website and see what they have to say about it.

3 of the 7 Colorado SC justices dissented on the ruling and 1 of them came out and blasted the ruling and all 7 are Democrat appointees.

a reply to: JinMI

Four times. Nixon, Clinton, and Trump twice.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown2
a reply to: WeMustCare

I DONT KNOW but has your caps lock got a mind of ITS OWN

I ask this of you mutilple times yet you never answer, no doubt my post will get removed for being off topic, but it seems since Trump does this more frequently so do you, is it a sign of affection you have for him? or do you feel it somehow makes you point more valid

Just asking out of curiosity

It looked like emphasis to me, is conversation not your first language? Just asking out of curiosity.

a reply to: RazorV66

All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.

Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Four times. Nixon, Clinton, and Trump twice.

Those are impeachments.

You know what I said.

Quit being slimy.

a reply to: RazorV66

Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief Wednesday to present the case that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Smith — a private citizen — is in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

I don't know about that. The US Code says something different. I sure would like to see what in The Appointments Clause these guys are referring to.

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: JinMI

Then zero.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.

Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.

Umm, what? From the opinion:

My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts
of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrectionrelated offense.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Then zero.

So you agree that precedent means nothing at the moment....

a reply to: JinMI

Why are you bringing up precedent about a President being charged by special prosecutor when Trump is a private citizen?

Either four Presidents have been charged based on the investigation of special counsels or zero have.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Why are you bringing up precedent about a President being charged by special prosecutor when Trump is a private citizen?

You brought up a 250 year precedent. I'm showing the class that where we are currently, precedent doesn't mean squat.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.

Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.

The judges have no authority to declare a mostly peaceful protest an insurrection.
Jack Smith has no authority to do anything he’s done.
Happy to help.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: RazorV66

All 7 judges in Colorado agreed that Trump committed insurrection. The three dissenting judges disagreed on procedural grounds.

Considering Smith has nothing to do with that case I have no idea what it has to do with this case.

The whole thing stinks. It wouldn’t be right for a Republican led state Supreme Court to ban Biden and it’s not right the way it went down. What’s next? A Republican/Democrat magistrate saying candidates can’t be on any ballots.

Must suck to be a Colorado voter eh?

a reply to: JinMI

Plenty of private citizens have been charged by special counsels and convicted. So what precedent has been thrown out?

a reply to: Myhandle

So Clinton's impeachment was invalid?

a reply to: Enduro

So the Dobbs decision is invalid as it was made by a Republican led court?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Myhandle

So Clinton's impeachment was invalid?

Drugs are bad, mmmk?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Honestly it's a good question and one that may be answered shortly. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is pretty vague on how it's enforced. Other aspects of the 14th Amendment specify they're enforced by Congress.

On the other hand, the Constitution is very clear that the States are granted autonomy on how they run their elections.

Here is the 3rd section:

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.

So Biden could be removed from the ticket due to his comfort to an invading force at the border, and giving Iran aid, as they are actively attacking us via proxy. That's interesting.

Here is section one:

Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sookie was nice enough to accuse me of not understanding that term a few days ago, so it's fresh in my mind. What due process determined Trump took place in an insurrection?

Thanks so much for your thoughtful replies.