On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>
>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>> exceptions.
>
> None of which disqualify him.

Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.

In article <hoTpN.26893$SyNd.24661@fx33.iad>, bondrock@att.net says...
>
> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> > In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
> >> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
> >> exceptions.
> >
> > None of which disqualify him.
>
> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.

Yet he's leading the polls.

On 1/17/2024 11:03 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <hoTpN.26893$SyNd.24661@fx33.iad>, bondrock@att.net says...
>>
>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>> exceptions.
>>>
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>
> Yet he's leading the polls.

He's heading to prison.

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:hoTpN.26893$SyNd.24661@fx33.iad...
>
>On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>> cannot.
>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>> exceptions.
>>
>> None of which disqualify him.
>
>Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>

You dolts believe any Dem fuelled nonsense.

Do you also still believe he colluded with Russia??

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>> exceptions.
>> None of which disqualify him.
>
> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.

Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
-WBE

On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>> exceptions.
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>
> Not by itself it doesn't.

It does.

> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> opinion").

He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.

In article <zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad>, bondrock@att.net says...
>
> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
> > OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> >> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
> >>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
> >>>> exceptions.
> >>> None of which disqualify him.
> >>
> >> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
> >
> > Not by itself it doesn't.
>
> It does.
>
> > He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> > actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> > opinion").
>
> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under 14.3.

He's still on the ballot.

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydmst2txlm.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>> cannot.
>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>> exceptions.
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>
> Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
> opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
> question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
> been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> -WBE

Actually no one from Jan 6th has...... so it's kind of hard to claim there
was any insurrection when there have been ZERO charges much less
convictions.

OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>> exceptions.
>>>> None of which disqualify him.

>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>> Not by itself it doesn't.

> It does.

>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>> opinion").

> 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.]

"Winston" wrote in message news:ydmst2txlm.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
>
>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>> cannot.
>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>> exceptions.
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>
>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>opinion").
>

You mean the court of Dem voting leftist opinion. The courts are stacked
with Dem voters.

>
>If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> -WBE

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad...
>
>On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>>> cannot.
>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>> exceptions.
>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>
>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>
>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>
>It does.
>

Only leftists say so. That's ok, the majority can continue to ignore.

>
>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>> opinion").
>
>He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>under 14.3.
>

How is that constitutional? Especially since the majority want Trump because
they're so sick and tired of all the lies and shenanigans.
Leftists need to learn that they can't just make willy nilly accusations and
keep getting their way.

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad...
>>
>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>
>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>
>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>
> Only leftists say so.

All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all say
so, and they're all ultra-conservative.

>>
>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>> opinion").
>>
>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified under
>> 14.3.
>>
>
> How is that constitutional?

Because it's in the Constitution.

> Especially since the majority want Trump because

What does that have to do with constitutional?

"OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:sWhqN.222959$7sbb.133801@fx16.iad...
>
>On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
>
>> "OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad...
>>>
>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>>>>> cannot.
>>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>>
>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>>
>>> It does.
>>>
>>
>> Only leftists say so.
>
>All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all
>say so, and they're all ultra-conservative.
>

Bullcrap. They're all Dem voters.

>>>
>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>> opinion").
>>>
>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>> under 14.3.
>>>
>>
>> How is that constitutional?
>
>Because it's in the Constitution.
>

Bullcrap again.

>
>> Especially since the majority want Trump because
>
>What does that have to do with constitutional?
>

The people decide what goes, not the Marxist left authoritarians. Got it?

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site

On 1/18/2024 3:15 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:

> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:sWhqN.222959$7sbb.133801@fx16.iad...
>>
>> On 1/18/2024 2:10 PM, Andrea W, lying trolling whore, lied:
>>
>>> "OrigInfoJunkie"  wrote in message news:zIcqN.43421$U1cc.5279@fx04.iad...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only leftists say so.
>>
>> All the most prominent law professors say so. Baude, Paulsen and Luttig all
>> say so, and they're all ultra-conservative.
>>
>
> Bullcrap.

Bullshit. They're conservatives, all of them.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>>> opinion").
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't have to be charged and convicted in order to be disqualified
>>>> under 14.3.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is that constitutional?
>>
>> Because it's in the Constitution.
>>
>
> Bullcrap again.

No, Andrea, you lying trolling whore.

>
>>
>>> Especially since the majority want Trump because
>>
>> What does that have to do with constitutional?
>>
>
> The people decide what goes

They get to vote for an eligible candidate on the ballot, Andrea, you lying
trolling whore. That excludes Trump who is disqualified.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>> exceptions.
>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>
>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
> -WBE

Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Swill
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>
>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>
>> It does.
>
>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>> opinion").
>
>> 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.]

+1

Swill
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>> exceptions.
>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>
>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>
>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>> -WBE
>
> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>
> Swill

Yes.
And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.

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

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.]
On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:39:33 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>
>>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>>
>>> It does.
>>
>>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>> opinion").
>>
>>> 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.]
>
> +1
>
> Swill

I too do not see any qualification that requires the person to be found guilty.
This is something for SCOTUS to decide as it is indeed a gray area.

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

pothead wrote:
> On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>
>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>
>>> Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>> opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>> question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>> been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>>> -WBE
>>
>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.
>>
>> Swill
>
> Yes.
> And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.

Don Fatso is obviously disqualified. I haven't the power to
enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

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.

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?

How that work?

Swill
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 01:55:57 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who cannot.
>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>>>>
>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>>
>>>Not by itself it doesn't. He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>>actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>>opinion"). If these supposed "Legal Scholars" are saying otherwise, I'd
>>>question their education and competance. AFAIK, so far, he hasn't even
>>>been charged with insurrection much less prosecuted and convicted.
>>> -WBE
>>
>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

>Yes.
>And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.

This is probably one of the most important and profound things we agree on. It's not much
of a Democracy if we let the courts decide instead of the voters.

Swill
NP: Moody Blues - Lovely To See You
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:02:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>pothead wrote:
>> On 2024-01-19, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:28:21 -0500, Winston <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Put him on the ballot and let the voters decide.

>> Yes.
>> And if it was a democrat I would say the same thing.
>
>Don Fatso is obviously disqualified.

Bullshit.

> I haven't the power to
>enforce my view. I'm happy to defer to the Supremes. No matter
>what they decide, they don't come away smelling clean.

I am NOT happy to defer to the SCOTUS. This is too important to leave to them. Trump's
Presidency is an issue the VOTERS should decide because we live in a republic that prides
itself on following democratic forms.

Swill
NP: Moody Blues - Higher And Higher
--
The moon landing was real, Bigfoot does not
roam the northern forests and the 2020 election was not rigged.

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

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?
>
> How that work?

Under Colorado state law § 1-4-1204(4), which permits people to
challenge the placement of a person on the presidential primary ballot.

https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-1-elections/general-primary-recall-and-congressional-vacancy-elections/article-4-elections-access-to-ballot-by-candidates/part-2-general-elections/section-1-4-204-state-and-district-officers

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ydil3qtuay.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>> On 1/18/2024 8:28 AM, Winston wrote:
>>> OrigInfoJunkie <bondrock@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 1/17/2024 1:31 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> In article <unu9j3$3vnnn$5@dont-email.me>, patriot1@protonmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The Constitution is clear about who can run for president and who
>>>>>> cannot.
>>>>>> It says any American citizen can run for president, with four big
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>> None of which disqualify him.
>
>>>> Having engaged in insurrection disqualifies him.
>>> Not by itself it doesn't.
>
>> It does.
>
>>> He's not legally guilty unless and until he's
>>> actually charged and convicted in court (not just the "court of public
>>> opinion").
>
>> 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.]

Would certainly seem to be a direct violation of his right of due process
under the 5th and 6th Amendments.
Nevermind the core principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.