Liberal Forum

NO one has any hard evidence fo voter fraud because there is no significant activity///////.........

Remember the Trump agenda, MAGA agenda, ALEC agenda and platforms are based on lies ............ the most reliable sources of lies lies lies and misinformation.........

Meet the libertarian party pretending to represent the republican party = liars of the century!

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/alec-t ... ures#Voter

https://www.rightwingwatch.org
 

razoo » 27 Aug 2023, 12:10 am » wrote: ↑

27 Aug 2023, 12:10 am

J. Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe make the case for Trump’s disqualification from public office

In a new article for The Atlantic, retired former federal judge J. Michael Luttig and top legal scholar Laurence Tribe make the case that the Constitution includes a provision that disqualifies Donald Trump from holding public office again.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is also known as the “disqualification clause.” It’s only two sentences long but it could doom Trump’s bid to return to the White House.

The disqualification clause “forbids the former president from holding the office of the presidency again because of his conduct in and around January 6, 2021,” says Judge Luttig.

And as Tribe points out, it’s not a sanction against an individual. “The framers of the 14th Amendment took great care not to treat this as a punishment … Nobody has a right to be president without meeting the qualifications.”

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 1177797850

BTW J Michael Luttig is a republican ................ whereas Trump, MAGA and ALEC are not.

What does the Constitution say about insurrection? Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has previously taken an oath of office (Senators, Representatives, and other public officials) from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

Disqualification from Public Office Under the 14th Amendment

FindLaw
https://constitution.findlaw.com › annotation15

==========================================================

Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 - Constitution Annotated

Congress.gov

https://constitution.congress.gov › amendment-14 › se...

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office ... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Amdt14.S3.1 Overview of ...
‎
Disqualification Clause · ‎Table of Cases · ‎Supreme Court Decisions..
 

razoo » 11 Sep 2023, 5:40 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:40 pm

BTW J Michael Luttig is a republican ................


 

Unfortunately for you, he isn't the final authority and doesn't have anything resembling the authority to declare someone ineligible.

Liberals seem to think someone can just decided on their own...they cannot.
 

ConsRule » 11 Sep 2023, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:42 pm

Unfortunately for you, he isn't the final authority and doesn't have anything resembling the authority to declare someone ineligible.

Liberals seem to think someone can just decided on their own...they cannot.

The 14th Amendment Article 3 is the authority............... prove me wrong with documentation. Trump and his criminal pals including those five very corrupt so called judges are not documentation .....................

There is no case law that removes the 14th Amendment Article 3 ..........
 
 

Neo » 11 Sep 2023, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:31 pm

Very clear. What is decidedly unclear is if a failed occupation/sit in show of civil disobedience rises to the level of sedition. Unarmed, most were non violent. It wasn't an insurrection, it was a photo op that wasn't nearly as violent as it's orchestrators intended. Headlines were already printed days in advance. This was supposed to be a mass casualty event. Instead the only violent death was an unarmed protester.

tell that to the juries that already convicted several people of seditious conspiracy for that "photo-op".

Zeets2 » 11 Sep 2023, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:30 pm

Any thoughts you have that Trump caused an "insurrection" on Jan 6th is laughable, especially when not a single arrested protester was charged with such a crime, and not a single protester carried any weapons with which to possibly threaten anyone in the Capitol.  And the reality is that the case should be thrown out immediately in the time it takes the judge and jury to watch the multiple videos of Trump pleading with the crowd to march "peacefully and patriotically", a video that was taken down by the social media giants in order to continue their ridiculous jihad against Trump.

So take your 14th Amendment **** and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!

seditious conspiracy... multiple convictions.  The clown told them to go fight like hell and they did.... they smashed through barricades and windows and broke down doors and effectively halted the constitutionally mandated counting of electoral college votes and declaring a winner for several hours.  And if they could have gotten their hands on Mike Pence strung him up like they expressly stated they intended to do, maybe things would have turned out differently.  

The fact remains... the Proud Boys and the crowd they led rebelled against the Constitution and Donald Trump gave them encouragement, aid and comfort to do so.  That's JUST what Section 3 of the 14th is all about. 

Zeets2 » 11 Sep 2023, 5:24 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:24 pm

That's easy!  
The PA judges dismissed the case, REFUSING to look at all the evidence the Trump legal team had!:

Rudy never offered it up.  Because it wasn't real.  If Rudy's initial complaint had stated he had actual evidence of voter fraud, no judge in the land would have summarily dismissed it.  

https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-n ... nce-fraud/

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN2AF1G1

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trum ... -wipe-out/

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news ... 262133002/

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign ... ot-1546699

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 7:05 pm

Rudy never offered it up.  Because it wasn't real.  If Rudy's initial complaint had stated he had actual evidence of voter fraud, no judge in the land would have summarily dismissed it.  

https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-n ... nce-fraud/

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN2AF1G1

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trum ... -wipe-out/

https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news ... 262133002/

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign ... ot-1546699

****.  Fraud was alleged in many lawsuits and no judge would allow any evidence to be presented. 
There wasn't a judge in this country with the balls to go on record saying a U.S. Presidental election was stolen.
 

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 6:51 pm

tell that to the juries that already convicted several people of seditious conspiracy for that "photo-op".

I have some faith in juries in my jurisdiction. That faith  doesn't extend to juries in the DC area. Political persecution pure and simple. There was no insurrection, these men have been grossly overcharged. 
 
 

razoo » 11 Sep 2023, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 5:31 pm

NO one has any hard evidence fo voter fraud because there is no significant activity///////.........

^^ *******.
Heather Mullins on X: "@birdieswan @Tiko_Perez @DineshDSouza @justinbwells @Timcast Gwinnett County, GA where ballot harvesting is 100% illegal. He places over 20 ballots in the Dropbox, fans them out beforehand, and takes a picture to prove he deposited them so he can get paid. He’s not dropping off for 20+ adult children living at home. https://t.co/CQ71YfJ8ol" / X (twitter.com)
 
 

Neo » 11 Sep 2023, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 7:59 pm

I have some faith in juries in my jurisdiction. That faith  doesn't extend to juries in the DC area. Political persecution pure and simple. There was no insurrection, these men have been grossly overcharged.

so if we don't live in your backyard, we're not Americans?  We can't be trusted to take the juror's oath seriously.

**** you.

I mean, seriously...**** YOU.

 

golfboy » 11 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm

****.  Fraud was alleged in many lawsuits and no judge would allow any evidence to be presented. 
There wasn't a judge in this country with the balls to go on record saying a U.S. Presidental election was stolen.

link to any judge who refused to accept actual evidence of fraud.

golfboy » 11 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 7:51 pm

****.  Fraud was alleged in many lawsuits and no judge would allow any evidence to be presented. 
There wasn't a judge in this country with the balls to go on record saying a U.S. Presidental election was stolen.

the aftermath document??

wow.          

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 8:19 pm

the aftermath document??

wow.        

Wow what?
Low IQ got your tongue, room temp?
 

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 8:13 pm

link to any judge who refused to accept actual evidence of fraud.

Wow.  that was tough. 
Judge dismisses Georgia lawsuit alleging fraud in 2020 election

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 8:12 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 8:12 pm

so if we don't live in your backyard, we're not Americans?  We can't be trusted to take the juror's oath seriously.

**** you.

I mean, seriously...**** YOU.

I judge trees based on their fruit. I don't believe anyone associated with Trump can get an impartial trial in many democrat enclaves. DC included. This is evident by their rulings. 
 

Neo » 11 Sep 2023, 8:36 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 8:36 pm

I judge trees based on their fruit. I don't believe anyone associated with Trump can get an impartial trial in many democrat enclaves. DC included. This is evident by their rulings.

but republican enclaves render objective verdicts?

the **** sick *** "tree" that spawned YOU should have been cut down before estrus.  
 

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 8:40 pm

but republican enclaves render objective verdicts?

the **** sick *** "tree" that spawned YOU should have been cut down before estrus.

I can't speak to that but blm rioters got pretty light sentences compared to the severity of their crimes. Democrats introduced politics into a system that is supposed to be apolitical. I am sure Republicans aren't above doing the same. An antifa leader would likely not receive favorable treatment in a conservative court.
 
 

maineman » 11 Sep 2023, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2023, 6:56 pm

seditious conspiracy... multiple convictions.  The clown told them to go fight like hell and they did.... they smashed through barricades and windows and broke down doors and effectively halted the constitutionally mandated counting of electoral college votes and declaring a winner for several hours.  And if they could have gotten their hands on Mike Pence strung him up like they expressly stated they intended to do, maybe things would have turned out differently.  

The fact remains... the Proud Boys and the crowd they led rebelled against the Constitution and Donald Trump gave them encouragement, aid and comfort to do so.  That's JUST what Section 3 of the 14th is all about.

So then, with such a large demonstration they knew was coming, why don't you try explaining why Nancy Pelosi REFUSED THE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS THAT TRUMP OFFERED SEVERAL TIMES?

And doesn't THAT indicate PRECISELY whose fault this riot was?  Yet, why did the investigative committee (made up solely of Democrats and Trump haters) refuse to interrogate her under oath?

THAT'S where the culpability lies, you know it and I know it just as everyone else does, and that factoid will be difficult for your corrupt prosecutors to spin from in order to try to blame Trump for it when it comes to trial!
 

Zeets2 » 12 Sep 2023, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

12 Sep 2023, 8:14 am

So then, with such a large demonstration they knew was coming, why don't you try explaining why Nancy Pelosi REFUSED THE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS THAT TRUMP OFFERED SEVERAL TIMES?

And doesn't THAT indicate PRECISELY whose fault this riot was?  Yet, why did the investigative committee (made up solely of Democrats and Trump haters) refuse to interrogate her under oath?

THAT'S where the culpability lies, you know it and I know it just as everyone else does, and that factoid will be difficult for your corrupt prosecutors to spin from in order to try to blame Trump for it when it comes to trial!

Those prosecutors didn't seem to have too much difficulty convicting all the J6 Proud Boys and Oath Keepers now rotting away in prison.  

It was an act of rebellion against the CONSTITUTION, in specific Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4.