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

originally posted by: Kotamari

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Kotamari

How about you go look up the term "dicta" and get back with us.

Welcome to ATS.


(Man, I've been saying that alot lately......)

thank you, was hoping for more ufo stories but ill chime in on these too.

sorry to hear you have a hard time accepting reality. hope you deal with that.

Will you be able to deal with the reality when the United States Supreme Court rules 9-0 in Trump’s favor about the Colorado case?

If not, here is something for you……
I hear it pretty much cures the screaming at the sky part of the affliction.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?

Apparently Garland did…..and now some law professors are claiming that Smith’s appointment in illegal.
And they have filed a brief to present the case to the SC.
We all know that all of this stinks to high heaven.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese has presented arguments to the Supreme Court that they should reject Special Counsel Jack Smith’s requests because he was unconstitutionally appointed in the first place.

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.

"Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," the brief states.

"Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos," they argued.

www.foxnews.com...

SMITH broke some laws in other countries I hear. A real scumbag, who was sent over there because he is a real scumbag.

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

Glad we’re focused on the important things here. Caps lock is way more important than law and order.

sometimes such little things reveal more than a thousand words.(; in woody allen style, i would interpret it like this: "this man is a slightly obsessed political cultist but less radical than the older ladies in my jewish feminists book club."

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

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

How many times has a president been brought on charges in that 250 year history?

.

The exact same number of times a sitting President tried to illegally stay in power after the Electoral College told him he lost.

Really?

If I was a World Economic Forum Stooge, I'd also be afraid.

Because the white boys you want to conscript and protect you feel nothing for you.

And your Islamist invaders feel even less for you.

Politically completely unloved from every direction, and not one of you is worth # in a street fight.

You're the most vulnerable and disconnected people on earth.

(P.S. not a response to the post above mine, or I would have pushed the "reply" button. Just a general response.)

originally posted by: stosh64
It is all so dystopian, 1984'ish. The Ministry of Truth has declared it an 'insurrection, and By Any Means Necessary the 'authorities will crush anyone that disagrees.
Just look at this example...

It is all so surreal, what just a decade or so ago would have been quickly exposed for the propaganda and blatant lies it in reality is, is now basically unchallenged and used as a basis to gain further power.

Amazing how Orwell, Huxley, Rand etc...saw this coming.

They understood human nature and looked at the world realistically.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Myhandle
Who appointed Jack Smith?

Furthermore, how many congress members confirmed him?


*DINGDING*

And Special Counsels are supposed to be hired/appointed from OUTSIDE the Federal government. But Merrick Garland either doesn't know this, or intentionally chose to disregard that rule, guideline, or whatever it is. Smith, Hur, Weiss, are all employees of the Federal government.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Link

The wire service also reported that the FBI has found no evidence at this point proving that Trump or those close to him were involved in any coordination of the insurrection on the Capitol. The FBI declined to comment to The Hill on the Reuters report and referred The Hill back to court documents in the cases regarding information on Jan. 6.

The FBI. Who else could do the investigation? DHS? They never called it terrorism.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WeMustCare

Trump's own words have made his engagement, and his part in it public.

What are liberal pundits and media saying Trump said, in order to ignite the Jan6 riot?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Yeah no one is talking about that brief released by former SCOTUS and AG that say the entire Smith thing is illegal. Just like the 1/6 committee. The 'real' one was voted down by the Senate. Then Pelosi pulled what they did.

We are headed to a situation where a president could be elected who is in jail. How did it get that far because I see more crime and hate under Biden now than anything under Trump.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Insurrection is our life-given right.

I don't know why you would punish anyone for that?

I guess that has been my problem all along, with this whole ordeal.

originally posted by: Enduro
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

Thankyou for sharing the actual legal terminology. If the Supreme Court also sees President Trump's actions as benign, Democrats will suffer a collective mental breakdown.

Isn't framing Donald Trump for the Jan6 violence planned by Nancy Pelosi, and initiated by the FBI, the LAST HOPE Democrats have for keeping Donald Trump out of office??

originally posted by: some_stupid_name

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.

Very astute and intuitive of you.

CONGRATS!

a reply to: WeMustCare

Bloody law enforcement. What more?

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.

These judges saw something the "Get Trump!" DOJ/FBI, and Pelosi's Capitol Police, couldn't find during their investigations of (formerly) President Trump?

That's crazy! The Colorado Water perhaps?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Then zero.

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

100% accurate. We are in totally uncharted waters.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

Excellent point!

The emotions of HATE and FEAR have caused Democrats to be blinded to the slippery slope they've constructed, by removing Trump for something he has not been charged with, and no authority has certified as having occurred....an "insurrection" against Federal authorities.

Officially, Jan 6, 2021 has still not been labeled as an "insurrection".

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
Talk about rigged !!!!!

Google search for "insurrection cases" is so rigged, all the Jan6 crap comes up first !!

Yet no insurrection charges ever came from Jan6 indictments ROFLOLz


😀Google Search: "insurrection cases"😀

You've got to hand it to Obama-Pelosi-Hillary-Biden for their 2020/2021 planning and execution of removing Donald J. Trump from the White House.

The 2020 forced economic downturn combined with several types of Election Interference/Fraud worked as designed.

The 2021 attempt to keep Trump out of office permanently failed, however.

Corrupt/Dirty Democrats and Republicans already knew what Donald Trump is going to do to them as President Trump 2.0, even before he started telling them in advance of the "retribution" (aka "HELL") that's coming their way.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

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.

These judges saw something the "Get Trump!" DOJ/FBI, and Pelosi's Capitol Police, couldn't find during their investigations of (formerly) President Trump?

That's crazy! The Colorado Water perhaps?

. . . The Water, or more likely The D.C. Cash and Gold 😀

a reply to: Kotamari

State Courts can't use Federal Laws against a person. They don't have jurisdiction. 😀