Judge rules Trump ineligible to appear on Illinois ballot under 14th Amendment

originally posted by: ByeByeAmericanPie
a reply to: xuenchen

Section 3, 14th Amendment:

“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.”

Yes, we know the wording of the 14th Amendment. Who are you talking about in relation to it. It can't be Donald Trump you're talking about, because there was no insurrection. Can you not read?

originally posted by: Kireg123
a reply to: Station27
The FBI is not the deciding factor here.
That is now two responses that prove just how out of touch some are.

[Blanked Out]

a reply to: Station27

So you agree?
You posted links to the FBI document so in your opinion the FBI is the sole deciding factor here? Even though they absolutely are in fact not.
I'm trying to understand you?

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

😆 🤣 😂 😹 an insurrection where only law enforcement had firearms?
Trumps tweets said to be peaceful and to respect law enforcement. CNN AND THE FAKE NEWS have you brainwashed.
Yeah...what an insurrection.
The revolutionary war was an insurrection,...but they must seem the same to you
The revolution saw hundreds of thousands dead for freedom. Trumps insurrection saw one unarmed veteran get shot in the face by a cop.
Jan 6 was a riot, mostly peaceful after seeing the footage that was hidden from us by the libtards.
A year and a half of BLM and Anifa riots with billions of dollars of property damage and over 50 murders, all supported and encouraged by the left in the name of politics.
Yeah but trump is the insurectionist..
Nice logic 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆

a reply to: ByeByeAmericanPie

Ashley Babbit was shot by a police officer through the broken glass of a door that someone else had broken ahead of her. The police weren't cornered, they were behind steel doors with glass insets inside of a building. She was shot in the face at point blank range. She was only person who died that day.

a reply to: Asher47

This is about the use and the validity of that use. Try to keep up.
Trump also said "fight like hell".
Your argument holds nothing.

a reply to: Asher47

Well actually they were cornered and had set up a barrier that any person of sound mind would not pass unless led by fantastical thoughts.

a reply to: Kireg123

Nice justification. They weren't cornered and the protestors were unarmed.

a reply to: Kireg123

Nice spin!
If you read his tweets you would be able grasp the context.
But you wouldn't care soooo.
Orange man bad right?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump has the same rights as any citizen to come and go as he pleases and to travel from state to state. Donald Trump doesn't not have the right to the Presidency of the United States.

Again, he has the liberty to run.

You keep trying to skirt this fact to make your laughable position work.

There are all sorts of rules and laws about who can be a US President. If he contravenes any one of them, then he does not have liberty to run as a candidate.

Should Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy, or Bernard Madoff have had 'liberty' to run as a candidate for President?

And surely if you can just invent 'liberties' that only particular individual people have, and the general populace don't, you would be legitimizing all sorts of corruption.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

FBI already said there was no insurrection that day. 😃

The Congress had already impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection.

FBI did not issue statement clearing Trump for Capitol insurrection

What the FBI did say was that the attack was not centrally coordinated, but they have filed conspiracy charges against several who were convicted.

The trespass of the Congress buildings were not the insurrection. The insurrection was the attempt to disrupt the transition of power contrary to the election result. The attempt to seize power in direct contradiction to processes defined in the US Constitution and legal statutes.

originally posted by: Asher47
a reply to: Kireg123

Nice spin!
If you read his tweets you would be able grasp the context.
But you wouldn't care soooo.
Orange man bad right?

You really should consider brushing up on legal speak.
Look up authentic term.
Don't come at me with your he said peaceful crap BS and try to spend it like it some saving grace when in fact it is the exact opposite. Did you forget that he said 'fight' many more times during that day before and after?
It is thinking like that that has gotten his butt in so much trouble with the law.

a reply to: Kireg123

Agree to disagree. I didn't see anything wrong with what he said. I'see theough the lens of what the dems stirred up with violent rhetoric during the BLM and antifa riots with no accountability not one of them mentioned to be peaceful . Not one of them held accountable.
It's about context, have you even read the tweets?
Or are you still thinking that Trump said there were good people on both sides and supported white supremacists and neo nazis during Charlottesville when in the context and content and unedited video he denounced them.

a reply to: Asher47

You said agree to disagree.
It will be left at that. No need to further exhaust ourselves when our minds are already made.
See you at the next debate fellow user.

a reply to: Kireg123

Well said and fair enough. Till next time. We are human we share that I'm sure we will eye to eye on something...sometime.

originally posted by: some_stupid_name
Having lived in Illinois I can tell you it wouldn't matter if his name was the only one on the ballot, he would never win the vote and gain the electoral votes for that state.

Which is why he was never really a threat worthy of poll intervention in Illinois.
The "insurrection" that Tracie Porter ruled on was executed by the likes of instigators like shaman Jake who over animated an unstable exploitable Goyim. We don't want a repeat performance but the parties involved learned their lesson. The fact that Tracie Porter a State supreme court justice has wielded her position to cripple the free Democratic process at the polls in Illinois may have serious consequences come November if the electoral votes for Illinois are deemed null and void by the Supreme court. If the chosen candidate for the Republican party is not allowed to participate in the national election process there really is no other choice.

By delaying the Supreme court decision a more proactive advisory ruling isn't possible now. Essentially Porter triggered the SCOTTUS rather than wait as she had been advised.

a reply to: Skinnerbot

Your saying Illinois is trying to force SCOTTUS to make decision faster? I'm not sure they should be poking the SCOTTUS bear as Illinois also just passed a gun law that pretty much banned most guns and imposed a mandatory gun regestry which the SCOTTUS is going to have to get involved in as well.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

For the umpteenth time squared....
Holding the office of President of the United States is a privilege. It's not a liberty/civil right.

For a State to disregard the selected front-runner is just insane. If they were true to their convictions they would just opt out of the whole thing, which is also insane, and to use a civil court or just a judge rule is beyond insane.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump has the same rights as any citizen to come and go as he pleases and to travel from state to state. Donald Trump doesn't not have the right to the Presidency of the United States.

Again, he has the liberty to run.

You keep trying to skirt this fact to make your laughable position work.

There are all sorts of rules and laws about who can be a US President. If he contravenes any one of them, then he does not have liberty to run as a candidate.

Written and understood as if you were a child. "WhaaH, there are all sorts of rules and laws". And you know none of them. What a dolt response.

originally posted by: charlyv
I can envision a Crow dinner, with all the fixins.
It will be so delicious to just watch them all eat it.

Ummm...dude...they should be so damned full of eating crow...I bet all they crap is feathers...

Doo process...



YouSir