US Politics Thread 2021-24

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I guess this is the question the court has to figure out-Did He encourage the spectators to attack the Congress or not ?

What I wonder is-Where in his speech did he do this ?
I have never found out where
(I'm going to follow the trial with interest-To see where he has said things that encouraged his followers to attack the Congress)

Markus

The question is, if he did what the media headlines, drama queens and party fanboys said he did getting all insurrectiony on us. Why hasn’t anyone formally charged him? Personally I think it’s pretty obvious and easy to figure out why. Unfortunately even after eight years of one accusation after another Blue-anon will simply refuse too.

Like I said nobody wants Trump or Biden to run. One they are attempting to financially ruin through endless litigation the other by embarrassing him sending his crackhead son to prison.

[August]

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

But Roland you can go to jail for it. Sorry Roland, headlines, rants, trying to convince oneself by talking about it over and over in your head, personal feelings or dreaming about it aren’t evidence. In my country you don’t get to arbitrarily convict someone of engaging in unlawful conduct without first proving it.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
U.S. Code

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

And the 14th Amendment, Section 3 still doesn't require a conviction or send anyone to jail.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

And the 14th Amendment, Section 3 still doesn't require a conviction or send anyone to jail.

So your claim is that the 14th Amendment can be invoked by just any unproven accusation then?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

And the 14th Amendment, Section 3 still doesn't require a conviction or send anyone to jail.

Damn Roland what law book you reading from?

That’s why I posted 18 USC 2389 which basically makes insurrection a punishable offense. Again you have to prove it. So far it’s just been Blue-anon, trolls, fanboys and drama queens crying, nothing more than pointless troll drama.

Conviction.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty.

It’s not rocket science Roland. If you accuse someone of unlawful conduct in my country, you have to prove it. Once it’s been proven then that person has been convicted of a crime only then will be punished in accordance with 18 USC 2389.

I don’t understand why anyone would even think to argue over this topic. It seems utterly pointless too, especially since nobody other than the fanboy mob has ever charged him with engaging in the above crime.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Damn Roland what law book you reading from?

That’s why I posted 18 USC 2389 which basically makes insurrection a punishable offense. Again you have to prove it. So far it’s just been Blue-anon, trolls, fanboys and drama queens crying, nothing more than pointless troll drama.

Conviction.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty.

It’s not rocket science Roland. If you accuse someone of unlawful conduct in my country. In this case, under 18 USC 2389 engaging in an insurrection you have to prove it. Once it’s been proven then that person has been convicted of a crime. Nobody has ever charged him of engaging in that crime.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/ne...olding-office/
“ Last week, J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and influential conservative voice, and celebrated legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard, published a piece in The Atlantic commending the report and bolstering its arguments. They wrote, “Having thought long and deeply about the text, history, and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause for much of our professional careers, both of us concluded some years ago that, in fact, a conviction would be beside the point. The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation.”

They explained that Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in part by inciting an attack on the Capitol “place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause.”

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Again you have to prove it.

That's why we have CSPAN.
All they have to do is replay the coverage of the clambake and social gathering from Jan. 6th. People were dumb that day. They told the truth about what they wanted and who put them up to it.

[Rockstar]

Well there you have it Buddahaid and ET2SN watched CSPAN and cracked the case all by themselves.

You should notify the DOJ right away and tell them all of the evidence someone on the internet and television told you..

Any day now

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Well there you have it Buddahaid and ET2SN watched CSPAN and cracked the case all by themselves.

You should notify the DOJ right away and tell them all of the evidence someone on the internet and television told you..

Any day now

Maybe you should read more opinions from constitutional scholars instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[mapuc]

"Don't want him to run for office again" Rockstar has said on several occasions

What if Trump is found not guilty in the trials that's await him ?

Or is the judge(s) and/or the jury biased in their mindset ?

Only way to get him off the election wheel is to see him going to jail or eliminated somehow.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Maybe you should read more opinions from constitutional scholars instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

It’s not me buddy you keep stepping it yourself every time single time.


Here’s a life’s lesson for you. Opinions are like buttholes, everybody got one.

My point is until someone actually formally charges somebody and proves guilt. All of the accusations heard in the echo chambers are just a bunch of buttholes chattering on about nothing.

[Buddahaid]

So you, in fact, don’t have a counter argument.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by mapuc

What if Trump is found not guilty in the trials that's await him ?

If we're lucky, he'll get a nice dacha just outside of Moscow or Pyongyang.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

So you, in fact, don’t have a counter argument.

Ya that’s it, ya got me.

[Otto Harkaman]