Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:53 am

kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:38 am

Not now. It would require Congress to pass a bill. Criminal court be damned.

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.

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 §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35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.

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.

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:04 pm
I don't get why the Democrats aren't blowing the "..if-he-has-nothing-to-hide.." horn every day. And keep playing the videos of his medicated ramblings..he's losing his shit - and the multi-billionaire can't even post a measley $500,000,000 bond....

Medicated ramblings?

How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:06 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:04 pm

I don't get why the Democrats aren't blowing the "..if-he-has-nothing-to-hide.." horn every day. And keep playing the videos of his medicated ramblings..he's losing his shit - and the multi-billionaire can't even post a measley $500,000,000 bond....

Medicated ramblings?

How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:24 am

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

How much have you heard about the Xanax?

kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:21 am

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.

A person can be convicted but congress still has the final say.

houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:17 am

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.

Because the voters have a right to know if they're voting for a convicted felon before they vote.

Actually we already know - if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't want to delay.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pm And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall.

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:35 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pm And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall.

there's not any DOJ rule that says this.

What is DOJ's '60-day rule' and what role might it play in a Trump trial before the 2024 election?

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."

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."

kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:18 pm

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?

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 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:50 am

kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:18 pm



I tried to point this out a few days ago. [bW]An autumn trial would be no one’s doing other than Trump.[/b]

Much hand wringing will ensue.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:48 am

kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:18 pm



I tried to point this out a few days ago. [bW]An autumn trial would be no one’s doing other than Trump.[/b]

Much hand wringing will ensue.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:18 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:48 am

I’m proud of you for acknowledging your posting difficulties.

Caribbean Hen wrote:Jumping through hoops to anoint the worst President of all time with 4 more years ….

Bye Bye Miss American Pie…

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:06 pm

Caribbean Hen wrote:Jumping through hoops to anoint the worst President of all time with 4 more years ….

Bye Bye Miss American Pie…

That could be true regardless of which of the 2 leading candidates wins in 2024.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:06 pm
That could be true regardless of which of the 2 leading candidates wins in 2024.

No

Trump actually loves his country

Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes

But only one actually loves America

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:06 pm

That could be true regardless of which of the 2 leading candidates wins in 2024.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No

Trump actually loves his country

Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes

But only one actually loves America

Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:48 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:06 pm

That could be true regardless of which of the 2 leading candidates wins in 2024.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No

Trump actually loves his country

Both Trump and Biden love dollars yes

But only one actually loves America

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!

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:55 am

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!

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.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2024 10:55 am

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!

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.