Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Putting on my objective lawyer hat ... it's actually not a bad argument! His lawyers are arguing that the insurrection clause wasn't meant to apply to the President. In support of that argument, they're saying the insurrection clause, by its own terms, applies only to those who took an oath to "support" the constitution. But the "support" language isn't there in the Presidential oath of office. Hence (the argument goes) this supports the theory that it was never intended to apply to the President. I'll grant you this: it's an awkward, even embarrassing argument to have to make (you're basically saying, "so what if Trump's actions didn't support the constitution"), but on a purely legal basis, kind of clever ... Look at what it is. its a shady funded PAC suing to keep him off the ticket. the defense is moronic. but it shouldn't even be there.
Warcodered Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Putting on my objective lawyer hat ... it's actually not a bad argument! His lawyers are arguing that the insurrection clause wasn't meant to apply to the President. In support of that argument, they're saying the insurrection clause, by its own terms, applies only to those who took an oath to "support" the constitution. But the "support" language isn't there in the Presidential oath of office. Hence (the argument goes) this supports the theory that it was never intended to apply to the President. I'll grant you this: it's an awkward, even embarrassing argument to have to make (you're basically saying, "so what if Trump's actions didn't support the constitution"), but on a purely legal basis, kind of clever ... Yes because preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution isn't supporting it, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.
SectionC3 Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 3 hours ago, SUNY_amherst said: Biden is too old no doubt. I think they should replace him as nominee in 24. But he's in better shape physically than that fat ass trump. He also wants the job. trump spent more time golfing than governing. Now trump is completely going down the drain making an idiot and a criminal out of himself. its time for his kids to save their father Eff that. Let Trump go down. We have this decay of character in this country that he’s a big part of. He can go. And he can take (the still-innocent but guilty in the court of public opinion) Bob Menendez with him. If you’re not there to serve the people, rather than yourself, then it’s time to GTFO. Enough is enough. 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Putting on my objective lawyer hat ... it's actually not a bad argument! His lawyers are arguing that the insurrection clause wasn't meant to apply to the President. In support of that argument, they're saying the insurrection clause, by its own terms, applies only to those who took an oath to "support" the constitution. But the "support" language isn't there in the Presidential oath of office. Hence (the argument goes) this supports the theory that it was never intended to apply to the President. I'll grant you this: it's an awkward, even embarrassing argument to have to make (you're basically saying, "so what if Trump's actions didn't support the constitution"), but on a purely legal basis, kind of clever ... I’ll grant the cleverness. The context in which the amendment was prepared counts. It dealt with people who attempted to subvert the constitution. Gymnastics of diction, clever as kind of impressive as they may be, aren’t going to work here - 1
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 Does it matter what the outcome of the DOJ witch hunt is? the mob already found guilt and wants its pound of flesh. Shady pacs are already suing in states to keep him off the docket. totally supported by the mob that's ironically talking about civics and subverting the rule of law. SMH
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Yes because preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution isn't supporting it, it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Like I said, it's a lawyer's argument. One that is problematic to make from a PR perspective, but not a bad hairsplitting distinction.
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 Just now, SUNY_amherst said: poor trump, treated unfairly lol. its like he should be able to break the law without consequences, ugh like I said, the mob already found him guilty. never mind the countless investigations and spying, for years, without one broken law found. but this time. who funds those PACS suing to keep him off the ticket? any Idea? or don't even give a rats as long as team blue wins?
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said: trump has been indicted for 91 freakin' criminal felonies. Some lawsuits from superPacs are literally the least of his worries One can indict a ham sandwich. Civil, grand juries. two places where the defendant does not have due process. and where its all focused. Im just wondering what your gonna do next when that falls apart. Banking on the PACS suing?
Tommy Callahan Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 1 minute ago, SUNY_amherst said: huh? I can't do anything dummy, I am just a regular dude 91 felonies seems pretty serious but yeah maybe you are right about this one lol Russia gate, dossier, Mueller, impeachments, actual tapping his phone and nothing was factual. But yeah, maybe your right about these.
Wacka Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 (edited) Yesterday Trump speaking at a rally in Iowa for about 90 minutes vs Joke having a blank stare and then shuffling off when asked 1 question about Israel. Edited October 12, 2023 by Wacka 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 1 minute ago, Wacka said: Yesterday Trump speaking at a really in Iowa for about 90 minutes vs Joke having blank stare and then shuffling off when asked 1 question about Israel. Every manic out there speaks for 90 minutes nonstop. Do you actually listen to what he's saying? 1
SectionC3 Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 31 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Does it matter what the outcome of the DOJ witch hunt is? the mob already found guilt and wants its pound of flesh. Shady pacs are already suing in states to keep him off the docket. totally supported by the mob that's ironically talking about civics and subverting the rule of law. SMH He’s cooked. It’s just a question of who brings the proceeding and where and when it happens. The bet here is that the Republicans avoid doing the wet work on this guy in the hopes that the voters do it for them early next year. If not, they’ll make the move on him because they know he can’t win the general and that a different candidate will have a good shot of taking that election. 1
SectionC3 Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 19 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said: I would be stunned. trump is the almighty leader of the republican party Prepare to be stunned. They all know they have to get rid of him. No time like the present. They can beat Biden with someone else, and Trump’s hezbollah nonsense (taken out of context, to be fair) might give them cover.
Doc Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Putting on my objective lawyer hat ... it's actually not a bad argument! His lawyers are arguing that the insurrection clause wasn't meant to apply to the President. In support of that argument, they're saying the insurrection clause, by its own terms, applies only to those who took an oath to "support" the constitution. But the "support" language isn't there in the Presidential oath of office. Hence (the argument goes) this supports the theory that it was never intended to apply to the President. I'll grant you this: it's an awkward, even embarrassing argument to have to make (you're basically saying, "so what if Trump's actions didn't support the constitution"), but on a purely legal basis, kind of clever ... I'd also add that just because you call it an "insurrection," it doesn't make it one. And where is the proof that he led the attack on the Capitol? He said to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Nowhere did he ever say "break into the Capitol" (that was someone else). 1 1 1
wnyguy Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Doc said: I'd also add that just because you call it an "insurrection," it doesn't make it one. And where is the proof that he led the attack on the Capitol? He said to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Nowhere did he ever say "break into the Capitol" (that was someone else). Facts? You're gonna go with facts here? That is a lowdown, dirty thing to do. I say, how dare you, sir. 1 2
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 5 minutes ago, Doc said: I'd also add that just because you call it an "insurrection," it doesn't make it one. And where is the proof that he led the attack on the Capitol? He said to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Nowhere did he ever say "break into the Capitol" (that was someone else). It was the world's first "insurrection" where all of the rioters suddenly and voluntarily left to go home for a nap followed by dinner. 2 1
Doc Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 2 hours ago, wnyguy said: Facts? You're gonna go with facts here? That is a lowdown, dirty thing to do. I say, how dare you, sir. They always talk about facts. The only provable fact is what Trump said for them to do. Which was actually the opposite of "get violent, assault law enforcement and break into the Capitol." If they heard something different, that was on them. 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: It was the world's first "insurrection" where all of the rioters suddenly and voluntarily left to go home for a nap followed by dinner. And there were no guns. Much less F-16s or nukes. 1
ChiGoose Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: It was the world's first "insurrection" where all of the rioters suddenly and voluntarily left to go home for a nap followed by dinner. Yeah, interesting how they left after being told to by a specific person. 1
Doc Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Yeah, interesting how they left after being told to by a specific person. Yeah, hours later...
ChiGoose Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 35 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah, hours later... Good point. It took hours and a lot of people asking him to do it before he ended up sending it.
Westside Posted October 12, 2023 Posted October 12, 2023 4 hours ago, SUNY_amherst said: Another day another Klan rally for trump ***** says what? F you, you piece of trash.
Recommended Posts