All_Pro_Bills

That's hardly a rebuttal. For example, are you saying leftist anarchists didn't attack the WH? SS agents were not injured? The Speakers office denied requests for more security? They did.

But it apparently it says the Speakers office should deny multiple requests for reinforcements for Capitol Police so protesters can be allowed to attack the Capitol to create an incident to milk for political purposes and hold hearings that cite extremists, arrest hundreds to conduct "show trials" with predudiced judges and juries, deny bail for minor offense to hold suspects for 1 and 1/2 years in maximum securty as political prisioners, and avoid any questions and God forbid, answers, about how leadership let it happen? Or attack the White House, engage in hand-to-hand combat with the secret service, see anarchists arrested, and mysteriuosly all charges get dropped? But no biggie, right?

DeSantis needs to express the view that Trump is not electable in a 2024 general election. Both his views and his personality are polarizing. Democrats definitely won't cross over and most Independents find him objectionable. As do many "traditional" Republicans. Voting for Trump in the primaries just ensures Democratic control of the White House for another 4 years. The country can't survive that outcome.

Horseshit. Answer the question. If there is no conviction what is the justification for banning a person from office under the amendment? Let's see what you've thought through.

If conviction of insurrection or rebellion is not a requirement to be banned from office you're arguing all citizens are eligible to be banned from running for or holding office at the whim of government. The is America, a Constitutional Republic. Not Pakistan or Ecuador. Or is that a hoax too?

The central issue is this. If there's no need to legally establish an actual insurrection or rebellion took place and there's no need to legally establish the person targeted participated in and is guilty of participating in the previously noted insurrection or a rebellion, then what's to keep from using the Amendment and section to disqualify anyone they simply don't "like" from running for or holding office? No proof, no evidence, no trial, judge or jury needed. Just an accusation logged with the Committee for Public Safety and off with your head! I know its a difficult concept for people that believe in "legal" arguments such as those presented by the likes of Jack Smith but you really do have to prove something at some point and accusations aren't the basis for punishment.

This morning the channel guide on Direct TV listed the Colts vs. Bills game for 1 PM on the alternate NFL Network channel, 212-1. Whether or not it's actually going to happen on the alternate channel I'll find out at 1. Set it to record to watch later. If whatever you subscribe to has an NFL Network alternate you might want to check the listing for this afternoon.

The section of the amendment requires a prerequisite or qualifyer that a person particpated in an insurrection or a rebellion to be utilized. And given no insurrection or rebellion occured the entire argument is moot. The conditions to apply the article cannot be met. So the constitutional argument is invalid.

Funny how the tactics and programs this administration utliizes are so similar to those of the 3 oppressive governments you reference.

Quite simply there was no insurrection or aid given to any enemy.

If this guy thinks no conviction is necessary in the administration of the law he ain't no constitutional scholar.

Many took bribes or extorted money from conscripts to exempt them from service. Kidnapping fighting age men off the streets was common practice.

$5 million/year utilities included.

A few weeks ago the investigation was declared over as the DOJ and Hunter's legal team were ready to settle the case with a plea deal until the judge requested clarity on the terms and conditions of the arrangement. Disagreement on specifics between the prosecutor and defense attorney followed. An arrangement of almost blanket immunity was disclosed and fell through. As a result, a not-guilty plea was submitted to the court. And today, after what was an investigation to be closed, a special counsel is required? To do what? Investigate new revelations or stonewall in hopes the Democrats regain a House majority and maintain control of the White House in November 2024?

I'm not sure how its possible for any person with basic reasoning skills and an objective outlook to listen to this entire interview and not come away with, at a minimum, a conclusion there's a complete lack of genuine disclosure and discussion from government officials on almost every action and non-action of officials on this day. And intentionally or not, the J6 Committee avoided any and all questions and answers into those areas. Why wasn't the government prepared to stop the violence and why were no mitigation strategies and actions in place or taken? And ultimately who was the person at the top that made the call to "stand down"? What I found especially disturbing along with highly insightful was the former Chiefs statements about how the military refused to provide support for the out-manned Capitol Police force (for fear of optics was the claim) and yet had no fear of optics in their decision to deploy troops to guard their private residences around the Washington DC area from potential attacks or visits from protesters.

My suspicion from the beginning was the events of 1/6 were allowed to happen. And perhaps provided some facilitation and help from government agents and assets in the crowd. The entire spectacle had the odor of a lack of authenticity. The reasoning to support this conclusion is sound, although not indisputable. Yet as usual, officials that know the entire story when questioned are less than forthcoming with answers that might fill in the blanks. Heaven forbid the American people know the whole truth. The greatest threat to our democracy since the Civil War and we get the snow job from the government. Given that its hard to take their assessment seriously. But they peddle it relentlessly and lots of morons have bought the story. But the knowledge that a large crowd would gather that day at the Capitol was well known. Many participants were already categorized as "extremists" by the government. Some degree of trouble should have been expected. Yet, rather than augment the Capitol Police contingent on duty that day with a force sufficient to handle whatever actions a 100K crowd could present as requested by the Chief, those requests were denied. By Pelosi according to Sund as the chain of command for security leads to the House Speaker's office. Which begs the question, why no more security given the circumstances? Those types of "failure of leadership" questions are always asked when some disaster happens but they've been avoided to the greatest extent possible here. You'd expect that to be a hot topic but it gets the silent treatment all around.

Britain is a nation in constant economic, moral, and social decline that clings to the U.S. in order to maintain the fantasy they're still a world power. So absent any real strength or purpose, they're left to deploy security forces to push around 16 year old autistic children while the cops ignore and fear having to enforce actual crimes committed by real criminals. I expect the UK Ministry of Truth will present commendations to each of the officers for apprehending this dangerous person.

Zelensky has the goods on Biden's Ukraine payoff scheme so Joe needs to keep sending loot.

If anyone is curious about where future production numbers are headed or the health of the oil service sector these rig count stats are a good source of information. https://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/na-rig-count

You're really at the end of your rope here and obviously willing to jump through hoops and bend light to avoid admitting Biden is involved in influence racketeering. Your false comparison of what Trump's kids did or didn't do and the legal and ethical implications vs. the influence peddling racket the Biden's have created in no way absolves Joe and Hunter Biden of running an extortion operation while he was VP and the legal consequences of their payoff operation. The two have nothing to do with each other. If Kushner's deal stinks then DOJ under the control of Democrats led by AG Garland are free to investigate. I suggest you ask Merrick why he hasn't. One reason might be that while throwing up some red flags concerning conflict of interest none of what transpired was hidden or secret.

Wisdom from people buying Jack Smith's what you said isn't what you really believe indictment.

Point to proof it wasn't permeated by fraud.

Men are masquerading as a woman to participate in women's sports because they're not good enough to win or show up in the top 50 against other men physically their equal. A malicious act of self-interest. What happened to fighting the patriarchy?

It's not okay that an elected government official, in this case the VP of the United States, was consciously aware that his son was extracting bribes and extortion payments from various foreigners in exchange for access to the VP and the powers of that office for favors, whether he did them favors or not or whether or not the access was an "illusion" or real. Money changed hands. Beyond a doubt, Joe Biden must have been aware of this arrangement and participated in meetings with those foreign persons. To suggest he didn't know what he was there for or what role he played is preposterous. Joe knew what he was there for. To prove to the chumps that Hunter could produce his dad when needed. What was discussed or whether or not he directly received payments is irrelevant. He participated in and was a conspirator to an illegal influence peddling operation. Along with having an obvious and clear conflict of interest here. I mean, my God, can it get any clearer what was going on here? If you want to continue arguing evidence and proof than have at it. But why would anyone want a President that has clearly demonstrated such bad judgment by getting involved in this scheme making critical decisions as leader of our nation?

What else is the DNC going to base their 2024 campaign strategy on other than protecting abortion rights and the dangers of white supremacist MAGA extremists and systemic racism? Other than that, what else they got?