The Trial of Donald J Trump -- Just trial info here

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

you could have looked at the link or read the comment to see it references that.

 

and has never been used on an executive. 

 

And list every event.

 

 

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

yes, you can keep repeating the same BS over and over again.  

 

the rest is a figment of your imagination.

 

And you all wonder why people call the left commies and that they want to transform the country.  

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

yes, you can keep repeating the same BS over and over again.  

 

the rest is a figment of your imagination.

 

And you all wonder why people call the left commies and that they want to transform the country.  

 

 

 

 

Meaningless drivel.   In point of fact you’re the one who doesn’t want to follow the constitution, and therefore who wants to transform our country.  You got cooked and everyone with half a brain knows it.  Don’t like what the constitution says?  Get a convention together and do something about it.  Until then, stop complaining and try taking a civics class or two.  

[Tommy Callahan]

Lmao as you keep puking msm narratives while talking about others needing to learn. 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Lmao as you keep puking msm narratives while talking about others needing to learn. 

Let us know when you have something other than a MAGA euphemism to add.  Or, better yet, take that civics class so that someday you might have something constructive to contribute.  

[TSOL]

31 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And if you’d read it you’d understand that the Senate debate addressed that question and rendered obvious the point that the drafters intended for the disability to applied to an executive in an appropriate circumstance.  Maybe if you read it you’d also have time to realize that there’s nothing in the amendment that precludes application of the disability to an executive.  

 

We can do this all day, and I can keep on cooking you and all of your MAGA pals, or you can just accept the reality that this clause could be a problem for Trump.  Not because I want it to be, not because you and your MAGA colleagues don’t want it to be, but because that’s how things happen to shake out based upon a constitutional provision drafted about 150 years ago. 

 

 

So you give your personal interpretation of a vague 200 year old law, state it as fact and that's your idea cooking MAGA's? 

 

Interesting, tell us more 

[SectionC3]

34 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

So you give your personal interpretation of a vague 200 year old law, state it as fact and that's your idea cooking MAGA's? 

 

Interesting, tell us more 

 

Hoax.  It’s not vague.  Plain as day, as a matter of fact.  CRS—nonpartisan congressional staff—happens to agree with me.  Keep on trying and I’ll keep on cooking you and your MAGA pals.  

[TSOL]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  It’s not vague.  Plain as day, as a matter of fact.  CRS—nonpartisan congressional staff—happens to agree with me.  Keep on trying and I’ll keep on cooking you and your MAGA pals.  

 

 

If that's your idea of cooking I'd hate to try your lasagne. 

[SectionC3]

9 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

If that's your idea of cooking I'd hate to try your lasagne. 

That’s the best you have?  

[SectionC3]

It's almost like someone here said the same thing days ago.  Enjoy, hoaxers:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

It's almost like someone here said the same thing days ago.  Enjoy, hoaxers:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

 

 

The term "insurrection" has been tossed around, from the start,  for a reason it seems. It could be argued that it was a rally gone awry. It's the liberal CNN crowd that has insisted on "insurrection" from the start, and after reading this article, for obvious reasons. 

 

The liberal Democrat controlled media has been pushing that narrative, as well as the "overthrow the government" narrative. But that's a Democrat strategy, control the narrative. And who could be anymore democrat affiliated than CNN, which at this point is basically just a tabloid like the national enquirer. 

 

The crowd truly believed that the election had been rigged, that dead people had votes counted, and illegal immigrant votes had been counted, which I personally believe was the case, there is evidence of that being the case. So their goal wasn't to overthrow the government, their goal was to not concede the presidency until it was 100% true that the election results had not been manipulated. 

 

There's video of government agency employees inciting the crowd to enter the building, egging on an already highly tense crowd because the magnitude of what was at stake was so sacred and so important. 

 

There was never and coordinated goal of "overthrowing the government", the crowd, and the candidate simply wanted to be certain that the results of the election hadn't been manipulated and I argue that they had every right to get to the bottom of the election results. 

 

This is not a clear cut case, I know you fancy yourself an absolutist, a legal expert but this complex set of circumstances really can't be definitively decided in the court of public opinion. 

 

This is going to take many years in the supreme court to sort out so just calm your t*ts 

[SectionC3]

Hoax.  When did you become so familiar with Supreme Court practice? 

[TSOL]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  When did you become so familiar with Supreme Court practice? 

 

 

First of all we are going to have to clearly define the term "insurrection" 

 

You see how this works? 

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

First of all we are going to have to clearly define the term "insurrection" 

 

You see how this works? 

Hoax.  Courts of law will.  Your boy is cooked.  Carry on. 

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax.

 

Commie.

[TSOL]

21 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Courts of law will.  Your boy is cooked.  Carry on. 

 

 

In many many years, stayed tuned... 

15 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Hoax.

 

Commie.

 

 

I do not know that he's a commie as much as he is just a pompous blowhard 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

In many many years, stayed tuned... 

 

 

I do not know that he's a commie as much as he is just a pompous blowhard 

Hoax to both.  To the extent it is brought, this case will move quickly and will be given priority.  And, dictionaries from the 1860s may soon be at a premium.  

 

You two dummies can call me all the names you want.  But Mike Luttig just so happened to come up with the same point after it was made here.  (I believe; I didn't see the Luttig article until this morning.). Bottom line - the Trump goose is gonna get cooked, and there's nothing that MAGA can do about it. 

[TSOL]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax to both.  To the extent it is brought, this case will move quickly and will be given priority.  And, dictionaries from the 1860s may soon be at a premium.  

 

You two dummies can call me all the names you want.  But Mike Luttig just so happened to come up with the same point after it was made here.  (I believe; I didn't see the Luttig article until this morning.). Bottom line - the Trump goose is gonna get cooked, and there's nothing that MAGA can do about it. 

 

 

You put alot of effort into pontificating but you put very little effort into backing it up, I get it, English is hard. 

 

Insurrection implies a military style action, a revolt, a rebellion. I did not see a rebellion, I didn't see a military takeover, I saw a few hundred disillusioned protesters entering a public building and kicking a few doors breaking a few windows, and milling about not sure what they were doing in there then leaving after an hour or two. 

 

Does that amount to a military revolt? They didn't have weapons so I do not believe that it did. 

 

The insurrection term coined by the CNN crowd and the all too eager democratic party, to take power,   just doesn't sit with me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. It's not an antelope. 

 

But I guess I should expect nothing less than attempts to redefine English language like the democratic party does 

 

"I'm not a man, I'm a woman" 

"It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn" 

Etc etc etc.

 

You guys need to clean up your verbiage. 

[Buffarukus]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:25 PM, SectionC3 said:

Meaningless drivel.   In point of fact you’re the one who doesn’t want to follow the constitution, and therefore who wants to transform our country.  You got cooked and everyone with half a brain knows it.  Don’t like what the constitution says?  Get a convention together and do something about it.  Until then, stop complaining and try taking a civics class or two.  

 

Can i copy and paste this for the gun debate thread? Fair use. 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

You put alot of effort into pontificating but you put very little effort into backing it up, I get it, English is hard. 

 

Insurrection implies a military style action, a revolt, a rebellion. I did not see a rebellion, I didn't see a military takeover, I saw a few hundred disillusioned protesters entering a public building and kicking a few doors breaking a few windows, and milling about not sure what they were doing in there then leaving after an hour or two. 

 

Does that amount to a military revolt? They didn't have weapons so I do not believe that it did. 

 

The insurrection term coined by the CNN crowd and the all too eager democratic party, to take power,   just doesn't sit with me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. It's not an antelope. 

 

But I guess I should expect nothing less than attempts to redefine English language like the democratic party does 

 

"I'm not a man, I'm a woman" 

"It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn" 

Etc etc etc.

 

You guys need to clean up your verbiage. 

You need to find an 1860s dictionary. Your opinion of the meaning of insurrection has no bearing on this issue. 

1 minute ago, Buffarukus said:

 

Can i copy and paste this for the gun debate thread? Fair use. 

Sure.  Maybe check out the tail of the Bruen opinion while you’re at it.  Or Heller.  Whatever suits you.