Liberal Forum

RebelGator » 03 Aug 2023, 5:22 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 5:22 pm

I wonder about the lengthy prison sentences for Pelosi, Schiff,  Nadler  Schumer, and Fauci. Do you think they'll be within the guidelines or will the Judge go beyond them as was the case with the trespassers?

So you’re capable of wondering. Stay with that.

jack » 03 Aug 2023, 8:02 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 8:02 pm

So you’re capable of wondering. Stay with that.

Right, I wonder how you can be such a jackass.

RedheadedStranger » 03 Aug 2023, 3:29 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 3:29 pm

It sounds like you have not only accepted, but are happy about, the fact that the judges are clearly biased about sending Trump to prison, regardless.

To you, it's not a matter of a fair or lawful trial... it's about burying a political opponent at any cost. Damn what's true or right.

The hired gun Jack Smith feels the same way. His "investigation" was never about finding any truths at all... it was about keeping Trump out of the WH, period.

That's Banana Republic style **** you're supporting there buddy, but I'm not surprised on the least.

Carrion...

FIFY...

jack » 03 Aug 2023, 4:28 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 4:28 pm

The time it took to track down evidence of what Trump did in relation to Jan. 6 isn't a measure of the response time it should take Trump, who knows what he did.
He will have to explain just why he needs more time than the prosecution's time table calls for.

The prosecution doesn't set the timeline of the trial. 
But I hope the judge sides with the prosecution.  That's an automatic appeal.
 

golfboy » 03 Aug 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 9:37 pm

The prosecution doesn't set the timeline of the trial. 
But I hope the judge sides with the prosecution.  That's an automatic appeal.

 Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

——

No matter how long the trial is delayed the evidence and facts will not change.

On Dec 14 as mandated by the constitution all fifty states assembled electors as provided by state laws and certified the results.  It was all over. Finished.

The crime was Trump ginning up fake electors,

That’s so illegal, and so crazy, it’s never happened before.

What if Biden tries the same thing, and then has Kamala Harris gavel him in the winner of a lost election?

golfboy » 03 Aug 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 9:37 pm

The prosecution doesn't set the timeline of the trial. 
But I hope the judge sides with the prosecution.  That's an automatic appeal.

Correct, I didn't say it did.  When the judge sets the trial date she will first ask Smith, who's case this is, what date the government is requesting. She will then ask Trump's attorney if the date is acceptable and if not why not and what date the Defendant requests. She will then set a date.
 

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 11:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 11:37 pm

 Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

——

No matter how long the trial is delayed the evidence and facts will not change.

On Dec 14 as mandated by the constitution all fifty states assembled electors as provided by state laws and certified the results.  It was all over. Finished.

The crime was Trump ginning up fake electors,

That’s so illegal, and so crazy, it’s never happened before.

What if Biden tries the same thing, and then has Kamala Harris gavel him in the winner of a lost election?

Psssst. Pissant.

The 12th Amendment made changes to that process. PERHAPS you should actually READ IT and see that NO PRESIDENT is elected UNTIL the actual elector votes are COUNTED, CERTIFIED BY CONGRESS. And the SENATE PRESIDENT (the VP of the United States) determines which ballots are to be counted.

BASICALLY, the Legislature from ANY State can decide to toss ALL votes, appoint a slate of Electors, and send THOSE VOTES to Congress for counting. Even sending an ALTERNATIVE SLATE of electors is NOT ILLEGAL, ****. But the VP can decide ON THEIR OWN to use whatever slate of Electors they deem valid.

Beekeeper » 04 Aug 2023, 6:35 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 6:35 am

Psssst. Pissant.

The 12th Amendment made changes to that process. PERHAPS you should actually READ IT and see that NO PRESIDENT is elected UNTIL the actual elector votes are COUNTED, CERTIFIED BY CONGRESS. And the SENATE PRESIDENT (the VP of the United States) determines which ballots are to be counted.

BASICALLY, the Legislature from ANY State can decide to toss ALL votes, appoint a slate of Electors, and send THOSE VOTES to Congress for counting. Even sending an ALTERNATIVE SLATE of electors is NOT ILLEGAL, ****. But the VP can decide ON THEIR OWN to use whatever slate of Electors they deem valid.

Wrong, and to anyone familiar with the American system it should be obvious it is wrong. You are parroting the theory Eastman idiotically put forth, that a federal office holder (vice president) may, on his own initiative, reject state certified electoral votes when the basic structure of the government is division of power between state and federal, on top of which a vice president often has, and Pence did have, a personal stake in the outcome.  The argument is ludicrous.

 

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm

They likely will grant it.

In the entire history of the United States this is the most important criminal trial ever to be held.

Any federal judge will send Trump to prison for attempting a soft coup of the United States government.

He tried to steal New Mexico’s electoral votes.

If we tried that **** we’d stay in jail until trial.

The judges will be triple careful not to leave Trump one issue on appeal.
 

I heard about all the other judges attending the hearing that would be likely chosen to replace here. Setup continues in plain sight.

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 7:00 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 7:00 am

Wrong, and to anyone familiar with the American system it should be obvious it is wrong. You are parroting the theory Eastman idiotically put forth, that a federal office holder (vice president) may, on his own initiative, reject state certified electoral votes when the basic structure of the government is division of power between state and federal, on top of which a vice president often has, and Pence did have, a personal stake in the outcome.  The argument is ludicrous.

WRONG!!

Parroting LSDNBC and CNNLOL's TALKING POINTS makes you look MORE STUPID than you already are!!

READ THE 12th AMENDMENT, dickbreath!! Sucks you know NOTHING but what you are able to jerk out of your *** that your HANDLERS SHOVED UP THERE!!

The CONSTITUTION says NOTHING about any "personal stake" when the various CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS where written.


THEN you can explain the 1960 ALTERNATIVE SLATE of electors put forth in that election from the State of Hawaii.

Beekeeper » 04 Aug 2023, 7:07 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 7:07 am

WRONG!!

Parroting LSDNBC and CNNLOL's TALKING POINTS makes you look MORE STUPID than you already are!!

READ THE 12th AMENDMENT, dickbreath!! Sucks you know NOTHING but what you are able to jerk out of your *** that your HANDLERS SHOVED UP THERE!!

The CONSTITUTION says NOTHING about any "personal stake" when the various CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS where written.

THEN you can explain the 1960 ALTERNATIVE SLATE of electors put forth in that election from the State of Hawaii.

I've read the amendment. The difference is I understand it. I also don't need to remind everyone you're a dumbbell in order to make myself feel better.

Ask yourself, if you can - would The Constitution, initially or as amended, provide for a Vice Presidential candidate to determine his own election in his favor by rejecting
state certified votes against him?

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 3:05 pm

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_S._Chutkan

Chutkan was born on July 5, 1962, in Kingston, Jamaica.[1] She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983 from George Washington University. She later attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was an associate editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. She graduated in 1987 with a Juris Doctor.[2]

——

Spin one for The Donald!

https://youtu.be/oxFVB4MGEv4

DEFENDED HUNTER BIDEN AND CORRUPT COMPANY BURISMA WHILE HER FIRM RECEIVED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ATTORNEY FEES
 

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 7:31 am

I've read the amendment. The difference is I understand it. I also don't need to remind everyone you're a dumbbell in order to make myself feel better.

Ask yourself, if you can - would The Constitution, initially or as amended, provide for a Vice Presidential candidate to determine his own election in his favor by rejecting
state certified votes against him?

You stole the election, most thieves don't advertise it.....only the morons.
 

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 7:31 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 7:31 am

I've read the amendment. The difference is I understand it. I also don't need to remind everyone you're a dumbbell in order to make myself feel better.

Ask yourself, if you can - would The Constitution, initially or as amended, provide for a Vice Presidential candidate to determine his own election in his favor by rejecting
state certified votes against him?

The CONSTITUTION never addressed your claim in either the original writing or the AMENDMENT, ****. So any ASSUMING on your part is just more of the same CRAP you play in daily. The FACT IS, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. HE/SHE is the person who OPENS THE ELECTORAL VOTES as he/she has determined are the VALID ONES to open and count. There is ZERO ambiguity or assumption to that FACT as written in the Constitution or the 12th amendment. For you to state OTHERWISE is pure speculation and an INVALID INTERPRETATION of the writings.

It must really SUCK FOR YOU that you DON'T get your way with no challenges to your ****, huh??

Beekeeper » 04 Aug 2023, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 7:54 am

The CONSTITUTION never addressed your claim in either the original writing or the AMENDMENT, ****. So any ASSUMING on your part is just more of the same CRAP you play in daily. The FACT IS, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. HE/SHE is the person who OPENS THE ELECTORAL VOTES as he/she has determined are the VALID ONES to open and count. There is ZERO ambiguity or assumption to that FACT as written in the Constitution or the 12th amendment. For you to state OTHERWISE is pure speculation and an INVALID INTERPRETATION of the writings.

It must really SUCK FOR YOU that you DON'T get your way with no challenges to your ****, huh??

Argument from someone who can’t think isn’t a challenge.

Bruce » 03 Aug 2023, 11:37 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Aug 2023, 11:37 pm

 Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

——

No matter how long the trial is delayed the evidence and facts will not change.

On Dec 14 as mandated by the constitution all fifty states assembled electors as provided by state laws and certified the results.  It was all over. Finished.

The crime was Trump ginning up fake electors,

That’s so illegal, and so crazy, it’s never happened before.

What if Biden tries the same thing, and then has Kamala Harris gavel him in the winner of a lost election?
 

First...the constitution DOES NOT mention when the electors assemble.  For that matter, it doesn't even state they must assemble at all.

Second...as you cited at the top of the post (which I highlighted), the constitution gives plenary authority to appoint electors.  Hypothetically, they could ignore the laws of the state and the popular vote on election day and select the electors they want.  Realistically, no legislature would do that as all would be defeated when they are up for re-election, but the constitution states they can...and there isn't a damn thing the Governor or any court in the land can do to stop them.

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 8:43 am

Argument from someone who can’t think isn’t a challenge.

An excellent read on the independent state legislature fringe theory

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained

Bruce » 04 Aug 2023, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 9:44 am

An excellent read on the independent state legislature fringe theory

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... -explained

Thanks. It's often pointed out that the country may soon be facing, or already is facing, radicalization of elections by Republicans who see doom on the horizon with an increasingly younger, less white voter population. Will cost them more turmoil than it's worth. They would be wise to heed the advice, "when you can't beat them, join them"; or at least meet them halfway. The biggest obstacle to ever working things out, however, is the Internet, our voice of discord.

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 8:43 am

Argument from someone who can’t think isn’t a challenge.

Yeah, we know.

It's WHY you get your miserable NAZI *** KICKED at every juncture on this forum. Just like you did NOW!!

It must really SUCK being a NASTY NAZI POS that you are.

jack » 04 Aug 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

04 Aug 2023, 11:23 am

Thanks. It's often pointed out that the country may soon be facing, or already is facing, radicalization of elections by Republicans who see doom on the horizon with an increasingly younger, less white voter population. Will cost them more turmoil than it's worth. They would be wise to heed the advice, "when you can't beat them, join them"; or at least meet them halfway. The biggest obstacle to ever working things out, however, is the Internet, our voice of discord.

Yeah, ****, you are once AGAIN proving to be DEAD *** WRONG!!

Seeing how the HISPANICS are coming to the REPUBLICANS IN MASSIVE NUMBERS and leaving your NAZI PARTY for good. Since MOST LEFT the OPPRESSION OF GOVERNMENT that you and your NASTY NAZIS are imposing today!! And they are the fastest growing voting bloc in the nation!!

Sucks for you AGAIN, *******!!