Liberal Forum

Vegas » 03 Jan 2024, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:45 am

@R. Suave  will continue to accuse me of what he is guilty of. He still wont read it...even the title.

I've read it.

It's the other reason I know you haven't.
 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:47 am

I've read it.

It's the other reason I know you haven't.

So you can't even read the title? 


Another perfect example of you making an *** out of yourself because you won't read.

1. Continue to accuse me of what he is guilty of. 

Vegas » 03 Jan 2024, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:50 am

So you can't even read the title? 

Another perfect example of you making an *** out of yourself because you won't read.

1. Continue to accuse me of what he is guilty of.

I read the title AND the article.

You've only read the title.

Admit it.
 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:52 am

I read the title AND the article.


 

Another lie, just as predicted. 

Look...you and I both know that you will never admit that your own precious Bloomberg owned you. 

You lose. 

QED. 

Vegas » 03 Jan 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:57 am

Another lie, just as predicted. 

Look...you and I both know that you will never admit that your own precious Bloomberg owned you. 

You lose. 

QED.

There's reason to believe me, none to believe you.

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 10:59 am

There's reason to believe me, none to believe you.

What reason? Let's see it. Your words have no value. 

Vegas » 03 Jan 2024, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:07 am

What reason? Let's see it. Your words have no value.

1) I'm a subscriber

2) You aren't.

Acknowledge the answers..

The upshot is that a majority of the justices won’t like the idea of being responsible for blocking Trump from the ballot, so they would have to pick the least worst way of making the Colorado Supreme Court decision go away. The court now finds itself dragged into the ultimate political territory of a presidential election. That won’t be good for its legitimacy, no matter what it decides.

Ibid.

I've said the Court is most likely to reverse, but will find a pretext to do so as it does not want to engage in a battle with State courts over election laws and ballot qualification.

My bet is that it will go the route of the "office" argument - which you don't understand.

The only wild card is Easy Sam Alito being ordered by his sponsors to cut Grifty loose because he's no longer of use.
 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:14 am

I've said the Court is most likely to reverse, but will find a pretext to do so as it does not want to engage in a battle with State courts over election laws and ballot qualification.


 

****. You just spewed how the JUDGES determined him to be ineligible. I then said it may be over turned, for which you replied with the same stupid answer. 

Liar. 

Vegas » 02 Jan 2024, 9:28 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Jan 2024, 9:28 pm

Him leading this 'insurrection' has never been proved. You want it to be true, your media wants it to be true, but it is speculation and theories. Nothing more.

explain why he tweeted a hour into the insurrection about how pence was not doing 'the right thing.'

and explain why he said  they were all special.

Vegas » 03 Jan 2024, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:27 am

****. You just spewed how the JUDGES determined him to be ineligible. I then said it may be over turned, for which you replied with the same stupid answer. 

Liar.

------------------------------------------------

according to the US code  anyone, not just officers who incites in a rebellion or insurrection should not hold an office ever.
--------------------------------------------------------------

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req ... nder%20the
 
<< Previous   TITLE 18 / PART I / CHAPTER 115 / § 2383   Next >>[Print]    [Print selection]
[OLRC Home]Help
 
18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrectionText contains those laws in effect on January 23, 2000
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPART I-CRIMESCHAPTER 115-TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Jump To:Source CreditAmendmentsCross Reference§2383. Rebellion or insurrectionWhoever 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 .)
 
 
 

R.Suave » 03 Jan 2024, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jan 2024, 11:14 am

1) I'm a subscriber

2) You aren't.

Acknowledge the answers..

The upshot is that a majority of the justices won’t like the idea of being responsible for blocking Trump from the ballot, so they would have to pick the least worst way of making the Colorado Supreme Court decision go away. The court now finds itself dragged into the ultimate political territory of a presidential election. That won’t be good for its legitimacy, no matter what it decides.

Ibid.

I've said the Court is most likely to reverse, but will find a pretext to do so as it does not want to engage in a battle with State courts over election laws and ballot qualification.

My bet is that it will go the route of the "office" argument - which you don't understand.

The only wild card is Easy Sam Alito being ordered by his sponsors to cut Grifty loose because he's no longer of use.

So you post an OPINION of someone who have ZERO insite into the court!!

Fact is, the SCOTUS is likely to overturn on the SIMPLE FACT that there has been NO CHARGES NOR ANY CONVICTION of any insurrection claim. WITHOUT THAT, you have people making OPINION as to whether he committed a crime or not. Sucks for you, huh, ****?? We have this little ditty called "INNOCENT until proven GUILTY" in a COURT OF LAW!! So far, you ain't got JACK **** in that regard!!

Beekeeper » 04 Jan 2024, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 3:25 pm

So you post an OPINION of someone who have ZERO insite into the court!!

Fact is, the SCOTUS is likely to overturn on the SIMPLE FACT that there has been NO CHARGES NOR ANY CONVICTION of any insurrection claim. WITHOUT THAT, you have people making OPINION as to whether he committed a crime or not. Sucks for you, huh, ****?? We have this little ditty called "INNOCENT until proven GUILTY" in a COURT OF LAW!! So far, you ain't got JACK **** in that regard!!

Noah Raam Feldman (born May 22, 1970) is an American legal scholar and academic. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and chairman of the Harvard Society of Fellows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Feldman

There's no Conviction required.

You're a **** idiot.
 

R.Suave » 04 Jan 2024, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 4:20 pm

Noah Raam Feldman (born May 22, 1970) is an American legal scholar and academic. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and chairman of the Harvard Society of Fellows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Feldman

There's no Conviction required.

You're a **** idiot.

And he has an OPINION, and that isn't considered enough of anything to matter. And he ALSO HAS AN ASSHOLE, like you do and HIS ASSHOLE AND HIS OPINION STINK LIKE ****!! Like yours do too!!

NO LEGAL SCHOLAR'S WORD is LAW, ****!! EVER!!!
 

Beekeeper » 04 Jan 2024, 5:48 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 5:48 pm

And he has an OPINION, and that isn't considered enough of anything to matter. And he ALSO HAS AN ASSHOLE, like you do and HIS ASSHOLE AND HIS OPINION STICK LIKE ****!! Like yours do too!!

NO LEGAL SCHOLAR'S WORD is LAW, ****!! EVER!!!

You might support pedos bit I don't. 
 

Beekeeper » 04 Jan 2024, 5:48 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 5:48 pm

And he has an OPINION, and that isn't considered enough of anything to matter. And he ALSO HAS AN ASSHOLE, like you do and HIS ASSHOLE AND HIS OPINION STICK LIKE ****!! Like yours do too!!

NO LEGAL SCHOLAR'S WORD is LAW, ****!! EVER!!!

It's a far beyter informed one than yours.

jerrab » 04 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm

explain why he tweeted a hour into the insurrection about how pence was not doing 'the right thing.'

and explain why he said  they were all special.

Pence had a choice to speak up, he didn't. I don't see how this can be considered evidence of inciting an insurrection. I don't see it. He had posted on Twitter for the rioters to stop and to march peacefully. Twitter took that post down. It was presented as evidence. 

None of the accusations add up. 

R.Suave » 04 Jan 2024, 6:01 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 6:01 pm

It's a far beyter informed one than yours.

No, ****, it's not. 

HE has an opinion steeped in PARTISAN **** and his LOGIC is clouded by LWNJ INDOCTRINATION AND PROPAGANDA!!

There has been NO INSURRECTION CRIME COMMITTED and there is indeed an "Insurrection" statute in the US Code. Until that has been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, there has been NO INSURRECTION that the 14th Amendement applies. PERIOD!!!

You don't put people in prison in this country for crimes they NEVER committed, ****!!! NOR do punishments apply if you have an OPINION that they committed a crime.

NOW GO **** YOURSELF!!
 

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 7:35 am

No, ****, it's not. 

HE has an opinion steeped in PARTISAN **** and his LOGIC is clouded by LWNJ INDOCTRINATION AND PROPAGANDA!!

There has been NO INSURRECTION CRIME COMMITTED and there is indeed an "Insurrection" statute in the US Code. Until that has been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, there has been NO INSURRECTION that the 14th Amendement applies. PERIOD!!!

You don't put people in prison in this country for crimes they NEVER committed, ****!!! NOR do punishments apply if you have an OPINION that they committed a crime.

NOW GO **** YOURSELF!!

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sec 3 of the 14th amendement doesn't refer to criminal conviction.
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 7:46 am

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sec 3 of the 14th amendement doesn't refer to criminal conviction.

How much are you willing to wager that the SCOTUS finds that it IS a requirement???

Because someone has an OPINION that an insurrection occurred, doesn't mean there was one, ****!!!

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 7:50 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 7:50 am

How much are you willing to wager that the SCOTUS finds that it IS a requirement???

Because someone has an OPINION that an insurrection occurred, doesn't mean there was one, ****!!!

It's not an "opinion"....it is the judgement of a Colorado court, upheld by its Supreme Court.

There's good reason why Sec. 3 doesn't require Conviction.

Furthermore, Wee Donnie is a piece of ****, getting what he deserves.