Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:20 am

You can read what they DID rely on....in the decision

Pssssstttt. CUMSUCK. The PRESIDENT is NOT A PERSON who this applies to. It SPECIFICALLY NAMES who it applies to, and the PRESIDENT isn't one of them.


Section 3 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

NOR has it EVER been established at the FEDERAL LEVEL that any INSURRECTION even happened on Jan 6th, 2021.

So you LOSE ON ALL COUNTS!!!
 

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:46 am

Pssssstttt. CUMSUCK. The PRESIDENT is NOT A PERSON who this applies to. It SPECIFICALLY NAMES who it applies to, and the PRESIDENT isn't one of them.

Section 3 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

NOR has it EVER been established at the FEDERAL LEVEL that any INSURRECTION even happened on Jan 6th, 2021.

So you LOSE ON ALL COUNTS!!!

It doesn't have to be established at the federal level.

You're wrong about everything.

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:41 am

Seeing how the 14th Amendment gives ONLY CONGRESS the ability to make that determination, you lose AGAIN, ASSKISS!!!

Now go suck your boyfriends COCK and SHUT THE **** UP. YOU LOSE!!

No....that's also ****.

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:48 am

It doesn't have to be established at the federal level.

You're wrong about everything.

Well, ****, since the CONSTITUTION establishes EVERYTHING about who is qualified and what those qualifications are AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, you are once again, KICKED IN THE NUTSACK with the FACT that States have ZERO AUTHORITY to change those qualifications, including being able to determine who is DISQUALIFIED!!! Sucks you don't seem to be too **** "smart" about how FEDERAL LEVEL APPLICATION OF LAW WORKS!!! Just like the STATES can't set any added requirements to be a Senator, Congress critter, President of VP, they can't just disqualify someone either!! 

!! *** KICKING ADMINISTERED AGAIN!!!

Beekeeper » 05 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 12:16 pm

Well, ****, since the CONSTITUTION establishes EVERYTHING about who is qualified and what those qualifications are AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, you are once again, KICKED IN THE NUTSACK with the FACT that States have ZERO AUTHORITY to change those qualifications, including being able to determine who is DISQUALIFIED!!! Sucks you don't seem to be too **** "smart" about how FEDERAL LEVEL APPLICATION OF LAW WORKS!!! Just like the STATES can't set any added requirements to be a Senator, Congress critter, President of VP, they can't just disqualify someone either!! 

!! *** KICKING ADMINISTERED AGAIN!!!

You are an idiot.

There is no requirement that the disqualifying behavior under Section 3 must be "established" at the federal level.

Nod.

Dayyyum - Murica is a **** wreck.

Mrkelly » 05 Jan 2024, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:32 am

They are still on twitter 

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346912780700577792?s=21&t=CIiH0ZcnefaCWPd3wzaG7g

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346904110969315332?s=21&t=CIiH0ZcnefaCWPd3wzaG7g

@jerra b  does this sound like evidence of Trump starting an insurrection to you? ^^^

Vegas » 06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm

@jerra b  does this sound like evidence of Trump starting an insurrection to you? ^^^

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told the committee that she recalled Cipollone rushing into then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ office and warning him that something needed to be done because things were getting out of hand and “people are going to die.” Cipollone told Meadows that they need to see Trump immediately, but Meadows replied, “He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat,” Hutchinson recalled.Former Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere told the committee that soon after the Capitol’s perimeter was breached, “he urged that the President make a statement telling the rioters to go home,” according to the report.At 2:13 p.m., the report notes, “rioters broke into the Capitol and flooded the building.”At 2:24 p.m., in his first public statement about the attack, Trump tweeted (and later deleted): “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”The tweet came on the heels of Trump urging Pence — both before and during his speech at the rally on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021 — to send the electoral votes back to the states to have them recertified. “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing,” Trump said during his speech at the rally. “I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election … So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do.”Moments after Trump posted the tweet about Pence, it was read aloud by one of the protesters using a megaphone. Shortly after, the crowd began chanting, “Hang Mike Pence!”Former Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger told the committee the tweet “looked like fuel being poured on the fire,” and he decided in that moment he would resign. Former Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews told the committee the tweet, “was essentially him giving the green light to these people, telling them that what they were doing at the steps of the Capitol and entering the Capitol was okay, that they were justified in their anger.”Minutes after the president’s tweet about Pence, the committee’s report states, “the crowds both inside and outside of the Capitol building violently surged forward” and broke through a security line held by the Metropolitan Police Department’s civil disturbance unit.As the violence at the Capitol escalated, the report notes, Meadows’ phone was flooded with messages from supporters urging the president to intervene. For example, at 2:32 p.m., Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham wrote to Meadows, “Hey Mark, The president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home.”And at 2:35 p.m., former acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney wrote, “Mark: he needs to stop this, now.”As Trump watched Fox News images of “the chaos and attack, with tear gas filling the air in the Capitol Rotunda,” he issued a tweet at 2:38 p.m., stating: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”But many in Trump’s circle believed that wasn’t enough.For example, at 2:53 p.m., Donald Trump Jr. texted to Meadows, “He’s got to condem [sic] this ****. Asap. The captiol [sic] police tweet is not enough.”

Vegas » 06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm

@jerra b  does this sound like evidence of Trump starting an insurrection to you? ^^^

---------------------------------------------------Matthews, the then-deputy press secretary, said she told her boss, then-Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, that she didn’t think the president’s tweet went far enough and “that I thought there needed to be a call to action and he needed to condemn the violence.”Matthews said McEnany told her “in a hushed tone” that Trump didn’t even want to include “any sort of mention of peace in that tweet and that it took some convincing on their part, those who were in the room. And she said that there was a back and forth going over different phrases to find something that he was comfortable with. And it wasn’t until Ivanka Trump suggested the phrase ‘stay peaceful’ that he finally agreed to include it.”Trump wrote another tweet at 3:13 p.m., asking everyone at the Capitol to “remain peaceful. No violence!” and to “respect the Law.”But again, Trump did not tell everyone to go home.At 3:31 p.m., Fox News anchor Sean Hannity texted Meadows, “Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital [sic].”According to the committee’s report, “Almost everyone, including staff in the White House also found the President’s 2:38 p.m. and 3:13 p.m. tweets to be insufficient because they did not instruct the rioters to leave the Capitol.” And despite urging from numerous White House aides and Trump confidantes, “None of these efforts resulted in President Trump immediately issuing the message that was needed,” the committee’s report states.According to the committee’s report, “Evidence showed that neither of these tweets had any appreciable impact on the violent rioters. Unlike the video-message tweet that did not come until 4:17 finally instructing rioters to leave, neither the 2:38 nor the 3:13 tweets made any difference.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/02/trump ... ol-attack/

jerrab » 04 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 1:21 pm

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

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 .)

Define rebellion and insurrection please 

BuckNaked » 06 Jan 2024, 4:04 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 4:04 pm

Define rebellion and insurrection please

what would you call it if  it was about obama?
 

jerrab » 06 Jan 2024, 4:24 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 4:24 pm

what would you call it if  it was about obama?

Barry?

BuckNaked » 06 Jan 2024, 8:44 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 8:44 pm

Barry?

anything like that started by obama you would condemn to high high heaven.

Vegas » 06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 1:15 pm

@jerra b  does this sound like evidence of Trump starting an insurrection to you? ^^^

  The party of law and order shtick flew out the window the day trump got elected.
You guys are now the party of traitors and butthurt bitches in the eyes of 3/4 of Americans.
 

All I know is I'm really,really enjoying the squealing from trump and the deplorables.
I can listen to it over and over.
Impotent old men threatening civil war.
Trump saying bad things will happen.
But in reality the squealing is all that will happen.
Can you imagine what it will be like if the Supreme Court doesn't decide in Trump's favor?
They'll be getting death threats,called traitors and swamp creatures for not being loyal to the guy that appointed them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Squatchman » 07 Jan 2024, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 8:57 am

All I know is I'm really,really enjoying the squealing from trump and the deplorables.
I can listen to it over and over.
Impotent old men threatening civil war.
Trump saying bad things will happen.
But in reality the squealing is all that will happen.
Can you imagine what it will be like if the Supreme Court doesn't decide in Trump's favor?
They'll be getting death threats,called traitors and swamp creatures for not being loyal to the guy that appointed them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Squatchman » 07 Jan 2024, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 8:57 am

All I know is I'm really,really enjoying the squealing from trump and the deplorables.
I can listen to it over and over.
Impotent old men threatening civil war.
Trump saying bad things will happen.
But in reality the squealing is all that will happen.
Can you imagine what it will be like if the Supreme Court doesn't decide in Trump's favor?
They'll be getting death threats,called traitors and swamp creatures for not being loyal to the guy that appointed them.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Grifty, under oath, tells everyone that he is not to be believed...

It's the only thing they won't take his word for.
 

Squatchman » 07 Jan 2024, 4:50 am » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2024, 4:50 am

  The party of law and order shtick flew out the window the day trump got elected.
You guys are now the party of traitors and butthurt bitches in the eyes of 3/4 of Americans.

I can always count a libtard to take a small bunch of idiots, then generalize their behavior to the whole. 
0 critical thinking skills. 

jerrab » 06 Jan 2024, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 3:11 pm

---------------------------------------------------Matthews, the then-deputy press secretary, said she told her boss, then-Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, that she didn’t think the president’s tweet went far enough and “that I thought there needed to be a call to action and he needed to condemn the violence.”Matthews said McEnany told her “in a hushed tone” that Trump didn’t even want to include “any sort of mention of peace in that tweet and that it took some convincing on their part, those who were in the room. And she said that there was a back and forth going over different phrases to find something that he was comfortable with. And it wasn’t until Ivanka Trump suggested the phrase ‘stay peaceful’ that he finally agreed to include it.”Trump wrote another tweet at 3:13 p.m., asking everyone at the Capitol to “remain peaceful. No violence!” and to “respect the Law.”But again, Trump did not tell everyone to go home.At 3:31 p.m., Fox News anchor Sean Hannity texted Meadows, “Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital [sic].”According to the committee’s report, “Almost everyone, including staff in the White House also found the President’s 2:38 p.m. and 3:13 p.m. tweets to be insufficient because they did not instruct the rioters to leave the Capitol.” And despite urging from numerous White House aides and Trump confidantes, “None of these efforts resulted in President Trump immediately issuing the message that was needed,” the committee’s report states.According to the committee’s report, “Evidence showed that neither of these tweets had any appreciable impact on the violent rioters. Unlike the video-message tweet that did not come until 4:17 finally instructing rioters to leave, neither the 2:38 nor the 3:13 tweets made any difference.”

This sounds like hearsay.