In <zXWrN.118351$q3F7.74367@fx45.iad> Rudy Canoza
<mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote:>
> On 1/23/2024 1:35 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>,
sleazy rent-skip
> chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> 14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to 
support/preserve/
>>> protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in
insurrection.
>>>
>> I'm not going to get into a pissing match about
>> whether Trump engaged in insurrection,
>
> He did, Francis.
>
>>
>> 14.3 only applies to people who take an oath "as a member of
Congress,
>> or as an officer of the United States,
>
> That's Trump.
>
>
>> 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."
>>
>> So, for example, officers of county and municipal governments
could
>> take an oath to support the Constitution and afterwards engage in
>> blatant insurrection, and still be eligible to run for POTUS
because
>> they are not prohibited persons.
>
> County commissioner Couy Griffen of Otero County, NM was held to
be disqualified
> by a state judge and was removed. He is still removed, Francis.
>
>>
>> Some legal scholars have theorized that POTUS is not "an officer
>> of the United States" so 14.3 doesn't even apply to POTUS.
>
> The vast majority of legal scholars, and all of the good ones, say
the
> presidency is a covered office, Francis.

"legal scholars" in this case are just left-wing activist assholes
trying to subvert a national election.

The media is only reporting their opinions and ignoring those of
everyone else.

On 1/23/2024 7:13 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:42:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 1:35 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to  support/preserve/
>>>> protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in insurrection.
>>>>
>>> I'm not going to get into a pissing match about
>>> whether Trump engaged in insurrection, BUT:
>>>
>>> 14.3 only applies to people who take 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."
>>>
>>> So, for example, officers of county and municipal governments could
>>> take an oath to support the Constitution and afterwards engage in
>>> blatant insurrection, and still be eligible to run for POTUS because
>>> they are not prohibited persons.
>>
>> In this context "State" covers local officials as well.
>
> No, it doesn't. If the "context" includes local, it also includes Federal.

No. It includes all offices that are subject to state authority (i.e.,
from the state on down, not up to the federal level). As Rudy pointed
out, a New Mexico local official was booted because of 14.3.

On 1/23/2024 8:07 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
> news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
>>> news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
>>>>>>> conviction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does it state that?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
>>>>> conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
>>>>> measure, scooter.
>>>>>
>>>> Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
>>>> Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
>>>> You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
>>>> and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
>>>> Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
>>>> The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
>>>> is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's before the SCOTUS right now.
>>>
>> As it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
>> eligibility are absurd.
>
> Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
> ratified.
>
Nobody argued that 14.3 disqualified Andrew Johnson or Ulysses Grant.

In article <uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
> > In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
> >> >> On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
> >> >>>> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >> >>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> >>>>>> news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
> >> >>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> >>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to be disqualified under 14.3.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret as mere accusation being sufficient.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.
> >> >>>>>> There
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's
> >> >>>>>> decision
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those charges. A civil court can not determine if
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone committed a crime.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> conducted a
> >> >>>>>> trial
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021 through incitement."
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial
> >> >>>>>>>>>> without
> >> >>>>>> charges
> >> >>>>>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
> >> >>>>>>>>> even though they were never convicted and in fact had been
> >> >>>>>>>>> pardoned.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> ===============
> >> >>>>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated
> >> >>>>>> to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section
> >> >>>>>> 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
> >> >>>> disqualified.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
> >> >>> those eight.
> >> >>
> >> >> No one said he was before now, scooter.
> >> >
> >> > Excellent, so
> >>
> >> Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
> >> any future office.
> >
> > Then why is he running and winning?
> >
>
> He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.
>
> And he's "winning" the MAGA vote because, well, they're MAGA cultists.

He's ahead of Joe.

LOL

On 2024-01-24, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:42:53 -0000 (UTC), George Busche <gbusche@trump.com> wrote:
>
>>When an election is closed, it's over. Vote counting stops. That's
>>what they do with military personnel.
>>
>>That is not what happened. Using COVID as an excuse, Democrats
>>continued counting votes until Biden/Harris "won".
>
> Vote counting does NOT stop when the polls close. Vote counting stops when all legally
> cast votes have been counted. If that means Wednesday morning counting of remote, late
> reporting precincts, so be it.
>
> Swill
> --

Of course but that's not what is questionable which is the patterns of voting when compared to all
the data that has been collected from previous elections.
Of course demographics change, patterns change but it's usually only slightly and happens to all
candidates pretty much equally.
There are so many questionable items during the 2020 election which is why only 62% believe the
election was fair.

<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/poll-biden-2020-election-illegitimate>

Then of course there are the questions of why did these anomalies seem to occur only in key
battleground states?
And why did it seem that Biden was always the candidate benefiting from the above?
And lastly, the democrat's reactions and the way the media exploded with the Biden won fairly
mantra while barely covering items that seemed odd.
If it was the other way around you can bet the DNC and the media would be all over this in order to
defend Biden.

All of that aside, it was the suppression of conservatives, the Hunter Biden laptop in particular,
by the media that gave Biden the win. Coupled of course with the 24x7 demonizing Trump while hiding
Biden.
That is election interference.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RkVrN.44862$Iswd.10864@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>>>>>>> >> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interpret
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> charges. A civil court can not determine if someone
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted
>>>>>>>>> >>>> a
>>>>>>>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> January
>>>>>>>>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Was he indicted?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> The hearing was civil.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Was he booked?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> It was a civil case.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Did he attend?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Could have if he wished.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>> Face his accusers?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> There were none.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Without proper due process
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>>>>>>>>> criminal trial, scooter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He never went to court for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> agreed with that part of the decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
>>>>>
>>>>> Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer,"
>>>>> scooter.
>>>>
>>>> Then he's not disqualified.
>>>
>>> He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
>>
>> Where does it state that?
>
> It's what it doesn't say

If it doesn't say it.. then it doesn't exist.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uopuu2$1lfji$1@dont-email.me...
> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
> news:8eZrN.250037$Wp_8.189870@fx17.iad:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 4:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
>>> news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal
>>>>>>> conviction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does it state that?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal
>>>>> conviction is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil
>>>>> measure, scooter.
>>>>>
>>>> Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
>>>> Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
>>>> You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
>>>> and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
>>>> Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
>>>> The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
>>>> is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's before the SCOTUS right now.
>>>
>> As it should be. Piecemeal state-by-state determinations of POTUS
>> eligibility are absurd.
>
> Yet strangly they didn't have that problem right after the 14th was
> ratified.

Well reason ruled then.. Now for Democrats its all emotion and allegations.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QkVrN.44861$Iswd.15909@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:59 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont-
>>>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> trial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
>>>>>>>>> charges
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ===============
>>>>>>>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the
>>>>>>>>> Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
>>>>>>> disqualified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of those
>>>>>> eight.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one said he was before now, scooter.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent, so
>>>
>>> Trump engaged in insurrection,
>>
>> Excellent and since that is a crime
>
> It's also an event

events don't disqualify you

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uopimo$1g0lk$3@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.4019a20a8d8ec9bd990fd2@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
>> In article <dfSrN.44069$SyNd.750@fx33.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2024 5:01 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:v4CrN.221412$Ama9.199601@fx12.iad...
>>> >> On 1/22/2024 12:43 PM, scooter lied:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>> news:XywrN.295239$xHn7.129338@fx14.iad...
>>> >>>> On 1/22/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:38:23 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> >>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> >>>>>> news:uojmva$aia3$3@dont- email.me:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>> >>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>> >>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to be disqualified under 14.3.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation.
>>> >>>>>> There
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's
>>> >>>>>> decision
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those charges. A civil court can not determine if
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone committed a crime.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> conducted a
>>> >>>>>> trial
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> January 6, 2021 through incitement."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial
>>> >>>>>>>>>> without
>>> >>>>>> charges
>>> >>>>>>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office
>>> >>>>>>>>> even though they were never convicted and in fact had been
>>> >>>>>>>>> pardoned.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Stupidity limit reached.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> ===============
>>> >>>>>> At least eight public officials have been formally adjudicated
>>> >>>>>> to be disqualified and barred from public office under Section
>>> >>>>>> 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment since its ratification in 1868.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Eight is significantly less than "tens of thousands" for sure.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Eight is the number who were formally adjudicated to be
>>> >>>> disqualified.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Great, now all you have to do is show us were Trump is one of
>>> >>> those eight.
>>> >>
>>> >> No one said he was before now, scooter.
>>> >
>>> > Excellent, so
>>>
>>> Trump engaged in insurrection, scooter, so he is disqualified from
>>> any future office.
>>
>> Then why is he running and winning?
>>
>
> He's running because he thinks he can pardon himself.

What would he need to pardon himself for.. countless legal actions and ZERO
convictions.

Makes me wonder just how stupid Democrats are to continue to believe such
lies of illegal activity.

Meanwhile, they are willing to make every excuse in the world for Biden.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened
>>>>>>>>>>>> in DC?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot
>>>>>>>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously
>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed what constitutes insurrection and engagement in one,
>>>>>>>>>>> and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection
>>>>>>>>>>> and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was not on trial.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
>>>>
>>>> You assert he committed a crime
>>>
>>> No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the
>>> four federal indictments for election interference. For example,
>>> coordinating the submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but
>>> not connected to the insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to
>>> states falsely saying that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime
>>> not connected to the insurrection.
>>
>> Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
>
> They're still to come

We've been hearing that for about 8 years now... still nothing.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_kVrN.44867$Iswd.30831@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>>>>>>>>>>> trial
>>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted? A trial without
>>>>>>>>>>> charges
>>>>>>>>>>> or arrest? Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even
>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a
>>>>>>>> conviction
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew
>>>>>>> they were disqualified, scooter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who had
>>>>> sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew they were
>>>>> disqualified.
>>>>
>>>> Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
>>>
>>> What I know are facts.
>>
>> And yet,
>
> Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.

Another Rudyism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>> >> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>>>>> >>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> interpret
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in DC?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
>>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the
>>>>>>> >>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>> >>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
>>>>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
>>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
>>>>>>> >>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
>>>>>>> >>>> than insurrection.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
>>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
>>>>>>> >> definition.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Post the definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so people would be charged with it.
>>>
>>> False. They *might* be charged with it,
>>
>> When they are, then 14.3 would apply
>
> It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
> insurrection, scooter.
>

Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.

Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SkVrN.44863$Iswd.41371@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ffSrN.44071$SyNd.3238@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 4:53 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would interpret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charges. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a
>>>>>>>>>>> trial
>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6,
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021
>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was he indicted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The hearing was civil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Was he booked?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was a civil case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did he attend?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could have if he wished.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Face his accusers?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were none.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>>>>>>> criminal conviction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does it say that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but
>>>
>>> No "but," scooter.
>>
>> Then the 14th doesn’t apply.
>
> It does,

You can't prove it. You admit that such language isn't even in the
Amendment..

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uopj5h$1g0lk$5@dont-email.me...
> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in
> news:n6WrN.255738$PuZ9.219859@fx11.iad:
>
>> On 1/23/2024 1:28 PM, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
>>>>
>>>> Where does it state that?
>>>
>>> It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction
>>> is necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
>>>
>> Black-letter rules of construction prohibit absurd results.
>> Allowing each state to rule separately leads to an absurd result.
>> You could have 45 states decide Trump isn't disqualified under 14.3
>> and 5 states deciding he is, but having to accept the fact that
>> Trump will be sworn into office on January 20, 2025.
>> The only interpretation that does not lead to an absurd result
>> is a ruling on the federal level that would apply to all states.
>>
>
> It's before the SCOTUS right now.

Should be a short case... was there a conviction?
No?
Then he is prohibited from running.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
>>>>>>>>> indicted?
>>>>>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
>>>>>>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>>>>>>> -WBE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
>>>>>
>>>>> A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
>>>>
>>>> Says who? You?
>>>
>>> Says the amendment, scooter.
>>
>> Cite the text that says what you assert.
>
> It's what is *not* in the text,

You lied then.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>>>>>>>> -WBE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
>>>>
>>>> They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
>>>
>>> Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not
>>> about criminal behavior.
>>
>> So Insurrection isn't a crime?
>
> It is a crime, scooter.

And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.

In article <uor59v$1r3ma$11@dont-email.me>,
me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
> > On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
> >>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
> >>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> >>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> >>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
> >>>>>>> >> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
> >>>>>>> >>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> interpret
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> happened
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in DC?
> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> ballot
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
> >>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
> >>>>>>> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
> >>>>>>> >>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
> >>>>>>> >>>>
> >>>>>>> >>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
> >>>>>>> >>>> than insurrection.
> >>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>> >>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
> >>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>> >> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
> >>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
> >>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Great.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
> >>>>>>> >> definition.
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Post the definition.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
> >>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
> >>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
> >>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
> >>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
> >>>>>>> being an insurrection.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If so people would be charged with it.
> >>>
> >>> False. They *might* be charged with it,
> >>
> >> When they are, then 14.3 would apply
> >
> > It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
> > insurrection, scooter.
> >
>
> Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.
>
> Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
>

He said Rittenhouse was guilty too. But he got slapped down.

On 1/24/2024 6:33 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <uor59v$1r3ma$11@dont-email.me>,
> me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
>>> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
>>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh? How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3. I saw nothing in there that I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -WBE [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in DC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not on trial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
>>>>>>>>>>> maximum prison term of 20 years;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Great.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Post the definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
>>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
>>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
>>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
>>>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
>>>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so people would be charged with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> False. They *might* be charged with it,
>>>>
>>>> When they are, then 14.3 would apply
>>>
>>> It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
>>> insurrection, scooter.
>>>
>>
>> Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO.. that's all the proof needed.
>>
>> Then he wonders why I don't accept his bullshit.
>>
>
> He said Rittenhouse was guilty too.

On 1/24/2024 5:37 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:RkVrN.44862$Iswd.10864@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:efSrN.44070$SyNd.39604@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:55 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uomgal$s640$5@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:MPG.401846f511460451990f27@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> > news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>>>>>>>> >> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> interpret
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> accusation.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> charges.  A civil court can not determine if someone
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted >>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> trial and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> January
>>>>>>>>>> >>>> 6, 2021 through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Was he indicted?
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> The hearing was civil.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Was he booked?
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> It was a civil case.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Did he attend?
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Could have if he wished.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>> Face his accusers?
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> There were none.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>>>>>>>>>> criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Without proper due process
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>>>>>>>>>> criminal trial, scooter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He never went to court for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet is somehow was a court that decided - and another court reviewed and
>>>>>>>> agreed with that part of the decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yea, but you sort of missed the grand jury, the criminal trial and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not required for 14.3, scooter. Trump was not "held to answer," scooter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he's not disqualified.
>>>>
>>>> He is, scooter, because 14.3 doesn't require a criminal conviction.
>>>
>>> Where does it state that?
>>
>> It's what it doesn't say, scooter: it doesn't say a criminal conviction is
>> necessary. It is plainly intended as a purely civil measure, scooter.
>
> If it doesn't say it

Then crime is not implicated in it, scooter.

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=038100029123013004081076092012126085063074048044030088076020003023091081126066114119002123033063023055035076100026103098095122049087078093002006080104097100124028029062086105070122085106093090085022001031069013072001083101096090106125121103100064017&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

On 1/24/2024 5:42 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GkVrN.44860$Iswd.8200@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 10:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dfSrN.44068$SyNd.13328@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:03 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that happened in DC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to Colorado
>>>>>>>>>>>> law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the ballot in that state,
>>>>>>>>>>>> pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court meticulously reviewed what
>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutes insurrection and engagement in one, and concluded that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the event of 01/06/2021 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged
>>>>>>>>>>>> in it. Trump was not on trial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged with
>>>>>>>>>>> Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge than
>>>>>>>>>> insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a maximum
>>>>>>>> prison term of 20 years;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for 14.3
>>>>>> disqualification, scooter.
>>>>>
>>>>> You assert he committed a crime
>>>>
>>>> No, scooter. In fact, he *did* engage in many crimes, not all of them
>>>> connected to the insurrection. These are the crimes addressed in the four
>>>> federal indictments for election interference. For example, coordinating the
>>>> submission of slates of *fake* electors is a crime, but not connected to the
>>>> insurrection. Directing the DoJ to send a letter to states falsely saying
>>>> that DoJ had found massive "fraud" also is a crime not connected to the
>>>> insurrection.
>>>
>>> Cite the convictions for these alleged crimes.
>>
>> They're still to come, scooter. His trial is on hold pending the appellate court
>> chucking out his absurd "immunity" claim. He'll be convicted on some of the
>> counts, too.
>
> We've been hearing that for about 8 years now

You've been hearing it for less than six months, scooter. The indictments were
handed down last August.

You always lie, scooter, and you always get caught.

On 1/24/2024 5:36 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SkVrN.44863$Iswd.41371@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 9:57 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ffSrN.44071$SyNd.3238@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:53 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:VywrN.295234$xHn7.261023@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 5:00 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:_4frN.76240$STLe.29340@fx34.iad...
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was he indicted?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The hearing was civil.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was he booked?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was a civil case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did he attend?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could have if he wished.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Face his accusers?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There were none.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And right there your whole argument fails.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5th and 6th Amendments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. I've instructed you on this, scooter. 14.3 does not require a
>>>>>>>> criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where does it say that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it's not in the amendment, scooter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but
>>>>
>>>> No "but," scooter.
>>>
>>> Then the 14th doesn’t apply.
>>
>> It does, scooter. 14.3 applies to anyone who, having taken an oath to
>> support/preserve/protect/defend the Constitution, subsequently engages in
>> insurrection.
>
> You can't prove it.

It's self evident, scooter. It's right in the text of the amendment section.

On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VkVrN.44865$Iswd.21381@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 9:55 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hfSrN.44073$SyNd.13643@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:44 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uomt6t$ubd2$4@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even
>>>>>>>>>>> indicted? Show us the exact quote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>>>>>>>>> -WBE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing
>>>>>>>> in the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such
>>>>>>>> disqualifications due to a finding in a criminal case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The writers of the 14th Amendment did not use the word "convicted".
>>>>>
>>>>> They didn't have to. the 5th and 6th
>>>>
>>>> Inapplicable, scooter. Those pertain to criminal cases. 14.3 is not about
>>>> criminal behavior.
>>>
>>> So Insurrection isn't a crime?
>>
>> It is a crime, scooter.
>
> And there has been no criminal trial convicting him of it.

Not needed, scooter. 14.3 is purely a civil matter.

You keep trying the same failed gag, scooter. Why is that?

On 1/24/2024 5:44 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5lVrN.44875$Iswd.18255@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 10:01 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cfSrN.44067$SyNd.40200@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 5:04 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>>>>>> news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <p4CrN.221406$Ama9.13528@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:47 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> > news:9zwrN.295260$xHn7.235573@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>>> >> On 1/22/2024 4:27 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> >>> news:5eTqN.116701$q3F7.94114@fx45.iad...
>>>>>>>> >>>> On 1/20/2024 4:50 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> >>>>> news:f6HqN.211867$Ama9.108404@fx12.iad...
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:50 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> interpret
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>    -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> state's decision is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trump was tried in Colorado for an insurrection that >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> happened
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in DC?
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> No, idiot. Trump was not tried. A civil suit, pursuant to
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Colorado law, was filed in Colorado to keep him off the >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ballot
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> in that state, pursuant to 14.3. The Colorado court
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> meticulously reviewed what constitutes insurrection and
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement in one, and concluded that the event of 01/06/2021
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it. Trump was
>>>>>>>> >>>>>> not on trial.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>> Further I would note that NO INDIVIDUAL has EVER been charged
>>>>>>>> >>>>> with Insurrection for the events on Jan 6th.
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> People have been tried and convicted for a more serious charge
>>>>>>>> >>>> than insurrection.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Maybe it was more serious, maybe it wasn't.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> There is no "maybe" about it. Seditious conspiracy carries a
>>>>>>>> >> maximum prison term of 20 years;
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Great. Now all you have to do is show were Trump was convicted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have to show that, scooter. Conviction is not required for
>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification, scooter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> insurrection carries a maximum penalty of only 10 years.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Great.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> Seditious conspiracy is more serious than insurrection by
>>>>>>>> >> definition.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Post the definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's implied by the penalty disparity, scooter. A crime with a
>>>>>>>> harsher penalty is more serious than one with a less harsh penalty by
>>>>>>>> definition, scooter. That's why it has the harsher penalty, scooter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Meanwhile, that means it wasn't insurrection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was an insurrection on 01/06/2021, scooter, regardless of
>>>>>>>> whether or not anyone was charged with that statutory crime.
>>>>>>>> Insurrection doesn't only mean a statutory crime, scooter. It's a
>>>>>>>> description of an event, and that event meets all the criteria for
>>>>>>>> being an insurrection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so people would be charged with it.
>>>>
>>>> False. They *might* be charged with it,
>>>
>>> When they are, then 14.3 would apply
>>
>> It applies regardless of whether or not they're charged with statutory
>> insurrection, scooter.
>>
>
> Rudy: He's guilty because I SAID SO

No, scooter. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about his "guilt" of the statutory crime of insurrection,
scooter. 14.3 doesn't address criminality.

On 1/24/2024 5:34 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZkVrN.44866$Iswd.5404@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4fSrN.44059$SyNd.36303@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:38 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:31 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ydede9tldd.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>>>>>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>>>>>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> 5th Amendment.
>>>>>>>>> We don't restrict your liberties without a criminal trial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Technically, since the 14th was passed after the 5th, its wording
>>>>>>>> prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
>>>>>>>> -WBE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if it specifically supersedes the language that exists. Nothing in
>>>>>>> the 14th sec 3 does supersedes the need to have such disqualifications
>>>>>>> due to a finding in a criminal case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A criminal conviction is not required for 14.3, scooter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says who? You?
>>>>
>>>> Says the amendment, scooter.
>>>
>>> Cite the text that says what you assert.
>>
>> It's what is *not* in the text,
>
> You lied then.

No.

On 1/24/2024 5:33 AM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_kVrN.44867$Iswd.30831@fx05.iad...
>> On 1/23/2024 9:54 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5fSrN.44060$SyNd.20161@fx33.iad...
>>>> On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u4CrN.221411$Ama9.213342@fx12.iad...
>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 12:23 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ezwrN.295268$xHn7.113462@fx14.iad...
>>>>>>>> On 1/22/2024 4:47 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:sfgqqilvl3rij61l4afqlvvf7pdun7jahp@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>>>>>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:epqnqi5b5n5duvovfirmifl7v3aje6e8ud@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:25:45 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 5:16 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:20:26 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 4:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:09:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/2024 9:39 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disqualified under 14.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?  How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read 14.3.  I saw nothing in there that I would interpret as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere accusation being sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     -WBE  [IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump has not been disqualified based on a mere accusation. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a trial in Colorado and Maine's secretary of state's decision
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is subject to judicial review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There has been no criminal trail held to evaluate those charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A civil court can not determine if someone committed a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14.3 disqualification isn't a criminal punishment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No court of any kind has proved he's guilty of insurrection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The District Court of the City and County of Denver conducted a trial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and held that "Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through incitement."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When was he criminally charged and convicted?  A trial without charges
>>>>>>>>>>>> or arrest?  Wow, what is it you advocate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tens of thousands of Confederates were barred from office even though
>>>>>>>>>>> they were never convicted and in fact had been pardoned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who were these "tens of thousands"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and which court stated they were barred from office without a conviction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None — the people petitioning for removal of disability already knew
>>>>>>>> they were disqualified, scooter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. They were southern traitors who were former officeholders who had
>>>>>> sworn an oath to support the constitution, and they knew they were
>>>>>> disqualified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because you "know" something doesn't make it true.
>>>>
>>>> What I know are facts.
>>>
>>> And yet,
>>
>> Another scooterism: empty wheeze that adds nothing.
>
> Another Rudyism:

Nope. It is a valid critique of your shitty writing that reflects your shitty
thinking.