Congress Democrats are Formulating a Bill to REMOVE TRUMP From the Race ASAP.

originally posted by: charlest2

...and they Work for US .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Man, have they got you brainwashed!

They work for us only when they are afraid of us, and right now, they aren't.

I am Not Brainwashed , I am a Realist . I also know the Law when it comes to Crimes Against the People . They Never Go Away , Only the Selective Prosecution of them is the Problem , and that can Always Change . We Are a Nation of Laws , and the Checks and Balances Always are in the Way of Tyranny .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Why Not ? The Movement of Politics are Fluid . If it were not for the Abortion Issue , the Reps would be a Majority in the Senate Today . As for the House , that to could go the Reps way in the Next 2 Years ...

I agree.

Anything can happen and probably will.

Anything covers a lot of ground though.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

By the way , the Jack Smith Case is Falling Apart , It Might Not be Finally Heard until After the Election ..........Ouch .

LOL 👍

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WeMustCare

"revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment".

They want to invent a new amendment modifying the previous amendment because the supreme court didn't decide in their favor? So now they have to rewrite the rules?

Nonsense.

The Supreme Court said today that Congress CAN declare an individual disqualified for the Presidency for being an insurrectionist. In fact, they seem to have said that ONLY Congress can do that. Back in January of 2021 the House brought forth an article of impeachment against Trump for Insurrection. Both the House and the Senate agreed with that article of impeachment by simple majority vote, although the Senate failed to get the 2/3 necessary to remove Trump from office.

By ruling the way they did today, the Supreme Court made the decision to declare a Presidential candidate an insurrectionist an entirely political decision. Personally I think that was wrong and short sighted. I think it would have been much better for them to have prescribed the criteria an individual would have to meet to be declared an insurrectionist and a judicial process for applying those criteria. For example, does a finding of insurrection have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or just by a preponderance of evidence? The situation they have created now seems to be that any Congress could declare any sitting President an insurrectionist at any time and for any reason--or no reason at all--as long as they can get enough votes.

Exactly how does congress establish that Trump is an insurrectionist ?

They can’t just march some dumbass to the front of the room and have him announce it.

He still needs to be charged, tried, found guilty, and so on.

Otherwise they could announce that anybody’s anything. You were in a room with a child. No claims from anyone, charges, arrest, or evidence. Congress can just announce that you molested someone because you were near some kid.

Congress already tried to prosecute him for insurrection and failed. Congress made him “innocent” of insurrection.

Even if they just write a new law and try to apply it retroactively to Trump, he still has been proven innocent by the same idiots. Unless, again, they feel like they can just announce he did it with no other effort or requirements.

I just don’t see them getting away with any of this.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
This is why we are hearing Civil War whispered about. They are weighing their options and they know what the outcome might lead to.

Anyone look at the size of the rallies Trump can have? Others see a standing army, they are terrified of the following he has.

I’ve yet to meet a Biden supporter face to face and I have yet to see a Biden/Harris campaign sign from 2020.

The only thing I’ve seen with Joes name on it was a sticker on a gas pump of JB pointing to the price per gallon saying “ I did that “

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
You just know Democrat leaders are secretly pondering a 'permanent' solution to Trump.
Make of this what you will...but we all know they'll try to remove Trump by any means necessary.

Dems are lying if they say they haven't seriously thought about it.

They would be destroying themselves and their families future. But if they're insane, they probably won't care, just like 34% of Democrats are presently in favor of the violence, drugs, diseases, and other threats President Biden is intentionally inviting into America day after day.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WeMustCare

"revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three of the 14th amendment".

They want to invent a new amendment modifying the previous amendment because the supreme court didn't decide in their favor? So now they have to rewrite the rules?

Nonsense.


By ruling the way they did today, the Supreme Court made the decision to declare a Presidential candidate an insurrectionist an entirely political decision. Personally I think that was wrong and short sighted. I think it would have been much better for them to have prescribed the criteria an individual would have to meet to be declared an insurrectionist and a judicial process for applying those criteria. For example, does a finding of insurrection have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or just by a preponderance of evidence? The situation they have created now seems to be that any Congress could declare any sitting President an insurrectionist at any time and for any reason--or no reason at all--as long as they can get enough votes.

What I want is for the Supreme Court to blow the lid off, by declaring that any former President can be tried in a U.S. court for what he/she did (or maybe even neglected to do?) when they were in the White House.

I want Biden standing trial for intentionally stealing classified documents and for intentionally enabling the deaths of American citizens, by opening our borders to murderers, diseases, addicts, and the mentally deranged, released from prisons and facilities in Central and South America.

Trump's "crimes" are dwarfed...DWARFED, by how Joe Biden has risked National Security and ruined lives in America!

HE MUST PAY.

a reply to: xuenchen


Mr. Trump's Reaction to the SCOTUS Ruling.............

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Myhandle
Isn’t it obvious what they’re thinking? They want Nikki to win. She works for the donors!

She proudly called herself a 'globalist'.
That's what they want.
Putting everyone of the world first, not America.
She is 'their' choice.
And they are going to try to make it happen.

Nikki Won her first primary last night. Washington, D.C.. Are the people of Washington in favor of the "Globalism" over the USA?

Yes. That's why D.C. is the only place she has won, and that includes her home state.

The District of Columbia is where the globalist are. It's like their mecca.

You think Haley is a REPUBLICAN!?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I am sure the Clinton's are looking for ways to do it, they did have a trail of suicides and dead behind them from their days in the white house.

originally posted by: charlest2

...and they Work for US .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Man, have they got you brainwashed!

They work for us only when they are afraid of us, and right now, they aren't.

But they certainly fear Trump

a reply to: WeMustCare


i asked this question and my thoughts on this in the thread i made this morning.

got a link that says raskin and house democrats are the ones that can stop trump?

one reason is congress is both the house and senate. the other i would think in the senate seeing how it's a presidential / election issue i would think it would take 2/3 vote like a impeachment vote would and they didn't have 2/3 in the senate for the insurrection impeachment. it was 57 for to 43 against.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Democrats are dreaming and sensationalizing again. ⚔️

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment


Is disqualification different than impeachment?

Yes. Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

⚔️

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Democrats are dreaming and sensationalizing again. ⚔️

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment


Is disqualification different than impeachment?

Yes. Someone who is impeached could be disqualified from holding public office in the future if they are convicted, and Congress applies such a punishment. But this is separate from disqualification under the 14th Amendment. Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can bar someone from holding office. But unlike an impeachment conviction, that decision could be overturned by the courts. Most importantly, disqualification under the 14th Amendment does not require the two-thirds vote needed to convict during an impeachment trial. However, two-thirds of both houses must agree to remove the "disability," once imposed.

⚔️

SPEAKER JOHNSON must be at a party.

But a spokesperson for Speaker Johnson told Fox News Digital on Monday night that his Democrat colleagues should “get a grip.”

SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY FOR TRUMP IN COLORADO BALLOT DISQUALIFICATION DISPUTE

“Democrats need to get a grip. In this country, the American people decide the next president—not the courts and not the Congress,” the spokesperson said.

Source: thebaltimorepost.com... -grip/

LOL GET A GRIP Democrats!

a reply to: xuenchen

that answered the question.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: WeMustCare


i asked this question and my thoughts on this in the thread i made this morning.

got a link that says raskin and house democrats are the ones that can stop trump?

one reason is congress is both the house and senate. the other i would think in the senate seeing how it's a presidential / election issue i would think it would take 2/3 vote like a impeachment vote would and they didn't have 2/3 in the senate for the insurrection impeachment. it was 57 for to 43 against.

The Supreme court ruled that only CONGRESS can remove a candidate for President. But from what I hear, the ruling was no more specific than that. Since Congress writes laws, let a joint House/Senate committee write legislation on how to remove a Presidential candidate.

originally posted by: 5thHead

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Myhandle
Isn’t it obvious what they’re thinking? They want Nikki to win. She works for the donors!

She proudly called herself a 'globalist'.
That's what they want.
Putting everyone of the world first, not America.
She is 'their' choice.
And they are going to try to make it happen.

Nikki Won her first primary last night. Washington, D.C.. Are the people of Washington in favor of the "Globalism" over the USA?

Yes. That's why D.C. is the only place she has won, and that includes her home state.

The District of Columbia is where the globalist are. It's like their mecca.

No wonder Putin says the first (and maybe the only?) Nuke he sends will obliterate D.C..

a reply to: dragonridr

Newsom reminds me of what Joe Biden would be like if he was a 50 year old governor of a liberal state.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Since Congress writes laws, let a joint House/Senate committee write legislation on how to remove a Presidential candidate.

yes the 14th needs to be amended to address the vagueness of sections 3 and 5 and set clear rules and not in legalese.