A person can be convicted but congress still has the final say.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 amNo, no, no. Read the opinion from the court. They clearly say existing code, passed by Congress, gives the legal pathway to enact Section 3.
I bolded the end of it. They say, right in the opinion, that Congress already has acted and that the provision from Congress still exists today. That's what makes the concurrence from the liberal side so strange - it's like they wanted to be upset about something, but couldn't really figure out what to be upset over. So they basically said "we agree, but we don't like it". The mechanism to remove a candidate from the ballot is there - Congress passed it - Sec 5 is satisfied, so for Sec 3 to take place all you have to do is convict him of insurrection. Something no one, in all of these lawsuits, has thought, or wanted, to charge him with. Pretending that the opinion says something other than this is a just a lot of teeth-gnashing by pundits that want to complain about something other than what's written.nstead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in
federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3
a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35
Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following
ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique
powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending
that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take
or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1,
2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives
§§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act
of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an
additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That
law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among
other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification
from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12
Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the
books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.
Team Trump v/s Everyone
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20247
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
How much have you heard about the Xanax?Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 amMedicated ramblings?
How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23360
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Sweating like a pig... the meaningless stream-of-consciousness verbal ejaculations.... the convulsive jerking and twitching of the hands...the compulsive tweeting in the middle of the night...straight up speed/xanax freakCaribbean Hen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 amMedicated ramblings?
How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23360
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
I want to tell you all a storyUNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:24 amHow much have you heard about the Xanax?Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 am
Medicated ramblings?
How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm
about this chick I used to know
her name was amphetimine Annie
and she was always shoveling snow
....
But Donnie kept on speeding
his health was getting poor
he saw things at the window
he heard things at the door..
maybe time to have Weird Al look into a parody of an old Canned Heat tune...
Last edited by houndawg on Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18094
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Of course they do, that's how the amendment is written. But Congress's "final say" is only in whether they, by a 2/3 vote in each House, vote to overturn a conviction. Prior to that and absent that, a simple conviction under 18 U. S. C. §2383 is enough to ban someone from office. Congress already, as SCOTUS pointed out, has performed their Section 5 duty.kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:21 amA person can be convicted but congress still has the final say.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 am
No, no, no. Read the opinion from the court. They clearly say existing code, passed by Congress, gives the legal pathway to enact Section 3.
I bolded the end of it. They say, right in the opinion, that Congress already has acted and that the provision from Congress still exists today. That's what makes the concurrence from the liberal side so strange - it's like they wanted to be upset about something, but couldn't really figure out what to be upset over. So they basically said "we agree, but we don't like it". The mechanism to remove a candidate from the ballot is there - Congress passed it - Sec 5 is satisfied, so for Sec 3 to take place all you have to do is convict him of insurrection. Something no one, in all of these lawsuits, has thought, or wanted, to charge him with. Pretending that the opinion says something other than this is a just a lot of teeth-gnashing by pundits that want to complain about something other than what's written.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
The voters already know everything Trump said and did on 1/6. And they have a right to know if any political trial conviction in the most lib jury pool in the country along with donk presecutor and judge would withstand being overturned on appeal. In DC Trump would be convicted anything: killing Kennedy, drowning puppies, etc, you name it. Smith knows a DC conviction of Trump would be overturned by SCOTUS, but that doesn’t matter if a conviction came before the election and the overturning came after, which would be mission accomplished.houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:17 amBecause the voters have a right to know if they're voting for a convicted felon before they vote.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pm
Nothing new to be learned about Trump and 1/6.
150 miliion people won’t get to hear if the trials are legit before the election because not enough time for appelate and/or SCOTUS to overturn.
If he’s elected they can have the trials in 2029.
No tbey don’t need to be expedited. They should be allowed to run at a normal speed course, which in a trial such as this wouldn’t be taking place until 2025. Smith and Chutkan have tried to run the DC trial at warp speed because they are hell bent on having Trump tried before the election. Chutkan has only allowed days or weeks for motions and hearings that would normally take months. Smith bypassed a sure win in the full DC Court of Appeals on Trump immunity in order to go striaght to SCOTUS because he is hellbent on having the trial before the election. Fortunately SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench on Smith’s and Chrutkan’s scheme.
And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall. Of course I’m sure they would say that doesn’t apply to Trump because Orange Man Bad something something.
Actually we already know - if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't want to delay.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14421
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
there's not any DOJ rule that says this.
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
It's been mentioned by Jack Smith that he would still be outside the "60 day interference window" if he could go to trial soon.
I'll see if I can find a quote, but do remember reading it the other day, in addition to it being a pretty much long standing rule. I think that's why Hillary was so pissed.
Edit (2 minutes later)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dojs-60 ... =107789927
What is DOJ's '60-day rule' and what role might it play in a Trump trial before the 2024 election?
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14421
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Trump was indicted by Jack Smith long ago. More than a year before the election. Before Trump even announced his candidacy. The DOJ rule isn't that everything must be wrapped up and all trials concluded before a 60 day window.
DOJ would not have let Jack Smith indict Trump in the 60 day window. But, that is moot.
Edit: did you read it in the 2 minutes you searched for it?
DOJ would not have let Jack Smith indict Trump in the 60 day window. But, that is moot.
Edit: did you read it in the 2 minutes you searched for it?
Bratt responded that the policy Cannon was referring to related to bringing indictments in the days leading up to an election, and was not relevant to the documents case for which Trump was first indicted last June.
Horowitz also notably cited statements on the rule from a then-senior ranking DOJ official who is now a top assistant to Smith, Ray Hulser.
Hulser told Horowitz that there was "a sense, there still is, that there is a rule out there, that there is some specific place where it says 60 days or 90 days back from a primary or general [election], that you can't indict or do specific investigative steps."
"He said that there is not any such specific rule, and there never has been, but that there is a general admonition that politics should play no role in investigative decisions, and that taking investigative steps to impact an election is inconsistent with the Department's mission and violates the principles of federal prosecution," the report stated.
While senior officials in the department had considered making the "60-day rule" a formal policy as part of a separate memorandum issued by former attorneys general related to "Election Year Sensitivities," Hulser said the idea was rejected as "unworkable."
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:50 pm Trump was indicted by Jack Smith long ago. More than a year before the election. Before Trump even announced his candidacy. The DOJ rule isn't that everything must be wrapped up and all trials concluded before a 60 day window.
DOJ would not have let Jack Smith indict Trump in the 60 day window. But, that is moot.
Edit: did you read it in the 2 minutes you searched for it?
Bratt responded that the policy Cannon was referring to related to bringing indictments in the days leading up to an election, and was not relevant to the documents case for which Trump was first indicted last June.Horowitz also notably cited statements on the rule from a then-senior ranking DOJ official who is now a top assistant to Smith, Ray Hulser.
Hulser told Horowitz that there was "a sense, there still is, that there is a rule out there, that there is some specific place where it says 60 days or 90 days back from a primary or general [election], that you can't indict or do specific investigative steps."
"He said that there is not any such specific rule, and there never has been, but that there is a general admonition that politics should play no role in investigative decisions, and that taking investigative steps to impact an election is inconsistent with the Department's mission and violates the principles of federal prosecution," the report stated.
While senior officials in the department had considered making the "60-day rule" a formal policy as part of a separate memorandum issued by former attorneys general related to "Election Year Sensitivities," Hulser said the idea was rejected as "unworkable."
I tried to point this out a few days ago. An autumn trial would be no one’s doing other than Trump.
Much hand wringing will ensue.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
GD double post.
Last edited by BDKJMU on Sun Mar 10, 2024 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:18 pmSkjellyfetti wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:50 pm Trump was indicted by Jack Smith long ago. More than a year before the election. Before Trump even announced his candidacy. The DOJ rule isn't that everything must be wrapped up and all trials concluded before a 60 day window.
DOJ would not have let Jack Smith indict Trump in the 60 day window. But, that is moot.
Edit: did you read it in the 2 minutes you searched for it?
I tried to point this out a few days ago. An autumn trial would be no one’s doing other than Trump.
Much hand wringing will ensue.
Last edited by BDKJMU on Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
I’m proud of you for acknowledging your posting difficulties.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
I’m proud of you for acknowledging your posting difficulties.
-
- Level2
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:24 pm
- I am a fan of: DELAWARE
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Jumping through hoops to anoint the worst President of all time with 4 more years ….
Bye Bye Miss American Pie…
Bye Bye Miss American Pie…
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Clearly you’re having the same problem. We heard you the 1st time.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20247
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
That could be true regardless of which of the 2 leading candidates wins in 2024.Caribbean Hen wrote:Jumping through hoops to anoint the worst President of all time with 4 more years ….
Bye Bye Miss American Pie…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Level2
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:24 pm
- I am a fan of: DELAWARE
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
No
Trump actually loves his country
Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes
But only one actually loves America
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20247
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
trump actually loves his country ... You might want to join SG and lay off the MAQA kool-aid.Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pmNo
Trump actually loves his country
Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes
But only one actually loves America
trump loves himself, not his country and not America. His country and America are a means to an end - more power, more wealth and more sheep worshiping him (including defending/deflecting any crticism with cries of tDS, but trump, I can't refute your criticism so I'm going to call you names).
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Someone who loves the flag does not:Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pmNo
Trump actually loves his country
Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes
But only one actually loves America
Support Putin
Flatter Kim Jong Un
Disparage our troops
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23360
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
but only one of them has to cough up half a billion in fines for his criminal activities.Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pmNo
Trump actually loves his country
Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes
But only one actually loves America
Thats whats really killing him, CH - very shortly even bootlickers like you are going to find out what a phony he is.
Dude's supposedly worth $10,000,000,000 but he can't pay a piss ant $83,000,000 fine....
Every time we see him now he looks like a slightly further deflated helium balloon than the last time we saw him.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- bobbythekidd
- Supporter
- Posts: 4716
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 pm
- I am a fan of: Georgia Southern
- A.K.A.: Bob dammit!!
- Location: Savannah GA
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
It's time for another weekly review of Trump's winning. This week:
Ran out of time to put up a bond in the E. Jean Carroll case. Monday asset seizure will commence.
Ordered to pay $380,000 for Steel's legal fees.
Still on the clock to put up a bond for his fraud trial.
Claims he is super rich and doesn't need to worry about money, yet his parking lot attorney is begging the court to reduce the amount of his bond.
So much winning!
Ran out of time to put up a bond in the E. Jean Carroll case. Monday asset seizure will commence.
Ordered to pay $380,000 for Steel's legal fees.
Still on the clock to put up a bond for his fraud trial.
Claims he is super rich and doesn't need to worry about money, yet his parking lot attorney is begging the court to reduce the amount of his bond.
So much winning!
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28072
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Newsflash: Most billionaires have only a tiny percent of their wealth liquid at any one time, and don’t have a half billion+ in liquid assets lying around.bobbythekidd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:39 am It's time for another weekly review of Trump's winning. This week:
Ran out of time to put up a bond in the E. Jean Carroll case. Monday asset seizure will commence.
Ordered to pay $380,000 for Steel's legal fees.
Still on the clock to put up a bond for his fraud trial.
Claims he is super rich and doesn't need to worry about money, yet his parking lot attorney is begging the court to reduce the amount of his bond.
So much winning!
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59567
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Sure. If it’s all in property and not invested. Sounds like a him problem.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:55 amNewsflash: Most billionaires have only a tiny percent of their wealth liquid at any one time, and don’t have a half billion+ in liquid assets lying around.bobbythekidd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:39 am It's time for another weekly review of Trump's winning. This week:
Ran out of time to put up a bond in the E. Jean Carroll case. Monday asset seizure will commence.
Ordered to pay $380,000 for Steel's legal fees.
Still on the clock to put up a bond for his fraud trial.
Claims he is super rich and doesn't need to worry about money, yet his parking lot attorney is begging the court to reduce the amount of his bond.
So much winning!
- bobbythekidd
- Supporter
- Posts: 4716
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 pm
- I am a fan of: Georgia Southern
- A.K.A.: Bob dammit!!
- Location: Savannah GA
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
I'll agree with your point 100%. However, isn't it telling that no bank or bond company will go anywhere near him now? He isn't credit worthy and is too leveraged on his assets.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:55 amNewsflash: Most billionaires have only a tiny percent of their wealth liquid at any one time, and don’t have a half billion+ in liquid assets lying around.bobbythekidd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:39 am It's time for another weekly review of Trump's winning. This week:
Ran out of time to put up a bond in the E. Jean Carroll case. Monday asset seizure will commence.
Ordered to pay $380,000 for Steel's legal fees.
Still on the clock to put up a bond for his fraud trial.
Claims he is super rich and doesn't need to worry about money, yet his parking lot attorney is begging the court to reduce the amount of his bond.
So much winning!
I also forgot to include that he endorsed a man that was just arrested for murder