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 prevails, just like the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).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".

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.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > Totally relevant
>
> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
> that the event was an insurrection, scooter.

So far nothing has proven it.
>
> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
> >>>> of statutory insurrection.
> >>>
> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
> >>
> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
> >> statutory crime of insurrection.
> >
> > Right,
>
> Right, scooter.
>
> > the mythical insurrection
>
> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.

No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
didn't try to get Trump.

In article <q4CrN.221407$Ama9.151180@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 12:41 PM, scooter lied:
>
> >
> >
> > "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:uomgal$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.

Amazing how that works.

In article <r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
>
> On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
>
> >
> >
> > "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:VywrN.295234$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.
>
> > We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
> > they did something.
>
> No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional
> "right" to run for president, scooter.

Nobody said that.
>
> >
> >
> >>> Without proper due process
> >>
> >> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
> >> trial, scooter.
> >
> > So you can't read either?
>
> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
> of itself, scooter.

You don't believe in due process. You have proven that.
>
> > Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters
>
> It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
>
> > How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
> > infamous crime"
>
> He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
> Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."

Because he is not guilty.

In article <uomt2g$ubd2$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad:
>
>
> > I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal
> > trial in and of itself, scooter.
> >
> For instance, Eminent Domain requires Due Process and is NOT a criminal
> matter at all.

It will be if they try to take my shit.

In article <t4CrN.221410$Ama9.131673@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
says...
>
> 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.

It's not working anyway so move along.

On 1/22/2024 4:00 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> 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.

Not necessarily.

It was an insurrection.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of insurrection.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Totally relevant
>>
>> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what "proves"
>> that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
>
> So far nothing has proven it.

False. It is the verdict of history that it was an insurrection.

>>>>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged and convicted
>>>>>> of statutory insurrection.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>>>>
>>>> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged with the
>>>> statutory crime of insurrection.
>>>
>>> Right,
>>
>> Right, scooter.
>>
>>> the mythical insurrection
>>
>> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on 01/06/2021, scooter.
>
> No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all.

There is indisputable proof that it was an insurrection.

On 1/22/2024 4:02 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad>, banmilk@hotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On 1/22/2024 12:40 PM, scooter lied:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:VywrN.295234$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.
>>
>>> We don't remove people's rights just because you claim
>>> they did something.
>>
>> No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an unconditional
>> "right" to run for president, scooter.
>
> Nobody said that.

scooter did.

>>>
>>>
>>>>> Without proper due process
>>>>
>>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a criminal
>>>> trial, scooter.
>>>
>>> So you can't read either?
>>
>> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial in and
>> of itself, scooter.
>
> You don't believe in due process.

I do, and Trump received it in Colorado.

>>> Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal matters
>>
>> It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.
>>
>>> How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
>>> infamous crime"
>>
>> He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally, scooter.
>> Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to answer."
>
>
> Because he is not guilty.

He is guilty.

In <1sArN.39248$IfLe.28282@fx36.iad>
Rudy Canoza <midget@gmx32.net> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/2024 7:53 AM, Winston wrote:
>> "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).
>
> I don't know about superseding the fifth amendment, but Baude and
Paulsen very
> much make the point that the 14th supersedes the first on this
point.

Baude and Paulsen can have their opinions just as anyone else.

They are both wrong because they are leftwing shitbags and and need
to be kicked in the nuts.

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.
>>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
>> >>> insurrection.
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> > Totally relevant
>>
>> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
>> "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
>
> So far nothing has proven it.
>>
>> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
>> >>>> and convicted of statutory insurrection.
>> >>>
>> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>> >>
>> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
>> >> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
>> >
>> > Right,
>>
>> Right, scooter.
>>
>> > the mythical insurrection
>>
>> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
>> 01/06/2021, scooter.
>
> No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
> didn't try to get Trump.
>
============
Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
in court filing

Jack Smith has detailed more evidence he plans to introduce at Trump's
trial.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-6-attack-trump-intended-special-counsel-
claims/story?id=105398386

=============
and if you read the 14.3, "or given aid or comfort" to the
insurrectionists.

In article <uonang$143g0$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.4018af88e690af5a990f8a@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
> > In article <p4CrN.221406$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.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
> >> >>> insurrection.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > Totally relevant
> >>
> >> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
> >> "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
> >
> > So far nothing has proven it.
> >>
> >> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
> >> >>>> and convicted of statutory insurrection.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
> >> >>
> >> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
> >> >> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
> >> >
> >> > Right,
> >>
> >> Right, scooter.
> >>
> >> > the mythical insurrection
> >>
> >> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
> >> 01/06/2021, scooter.
> >
> > No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
> > didn't try to get Trump.
> >
> ============
> Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
> in court filing

"special counsel" LOL

Jack Smith LOL
>
> Jack Smith has detailed more evidence he plans to introduce at Trump's
> trial.
>
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/jan-6-attack-trump-intended-special-counsel-
> claims/story?id=105398386
>
> =============
> and if you read the 14.3, "or given aid or comfort" to the
> insurrectionists.

"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.

Hell, you're proof of that.. so much of what you "know" is flat out wrong
and despite being regularly corrected on it.. you still "know" those
falsehoods.

>>>
>>>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
>>>
>>> There were no pardons, scooter.
>>
>> Then you apparently don't know history
>
> There were no pardons issued to people who were disqualified under 14.3
> that removed their disqualification, scooter.

Actually there were at least 8 such cases.. but hey, history, even
knowledge, is something you know next to nothing about.

>The removal of 14.3 disqualifications could *only* come from Congress,
>scooter.

Rudy admits he doesn't know the Constitution very well.

> That's why the southern traitors sent their amnesty petitions to Congress,
> scooter, and not to the pardon office.

They could have sent them to Santa Clause.. since unless they had been
convicted, they would have no need for any pardon.

"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?

How can you establish what someone engaged in such without a criminal trial?
I mean the person has rights.

I know, you ignore the Constitution when it doesn't suit you.. as you do the
whole 2nd Amendment.

>

"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 made it very clear that one has to be
found guilty in criminal court in order such such limits to their rights and
liberty's to be infringed.

otherwise one party could arbitrarily accusing an opposing candidate and
have them denied... oh, wait, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Meanwhile I would note that Biden has been recently accused of infamous
crimes (ie felonies) and by your theories that would make Joe Biden unable
to run.

"Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s4CrN.221409$Ama9.149297@fx12.iad...
> On 1/22/2024 12:34 PM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Wilson Woods" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:WywrN.295237$xHn7.800@fx14.iad...
>>> On 1/22/2024 4:56 AM, scooter lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uojin6$8j9n$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:2iipqi1uosepc9kum92kbbj7j68jhrc734@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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was he indicted? Was he booked? Did he attend? Face his accusers?
>>>>>> Was he represented by counsel who argued his case for him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless all these criteria were met, said trial was a kangaroo court,
>>>>>> irrelevant and powerless.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where in 14.3 does it say anything about convicted or even indicted?
>>>>> Show us the exact quote.
>>>>
>>>> 5th Amendment.
>>>
>>> No. The fifth amendment says nothing about a criminal trial being
>>> required in order to secure disqualification under the 14th.
>>
>> So we can deny your liberties.. just because?
>
> No, scooter.
>
> There is no liberty interest to be considered eligible to run for
> president,

Sure there is.

> scooter. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not run for president, and no liberty
> has been denied to him, scooter.

Sure it has.. he can't run for President.

> And furthermore, he hasn't been denied due process, either. He simply
> isn't eligible, scooter.

Ah, but that's just it.. Trump is eligible and you are the one asserting his
criminal actions.. which sort of requires a, wait for it, conviction.

>>> Disqualification does not require a criminal conviction.
>>

True, as far as it goes.. but when that disqualification involves criminal
acts.. then yes, a criminal conviction is required.

"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 it is in the Constitution.

Specifically the 5th Amendment.

>> We don't remove people's rights just because you claim they did
>> something.
>
> No one did that with Trump, scooter. A person doesn't have an
> unconditional "right" to run for president, scooter.

Never said they do, but if you're going to assert something disqualifies
him, then you sort of have to prove it.

Oh, but you have problems with that.. you don't do proof or facts.. you
simply make empty assertions.

>
>>
>>
>>>> Without proper due process
>>>
>>> Trump received due process. "Due process" does not mean or imply a
>>> criminal trial, scooter.
>>
>> So you can't read either?
>
> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal trial
> in and of itself, scooter.

Unless the matter involves a crime.. at which point a criminal trial is
required under the law to establish such a crime occurred.

>
>> Then why did they put the term in an Amendment having to do with criminal
>> matters
>
> It doesn't only deal with criminal matters, scooter.

Which of those are not a criminal matter?

>> How can you assert Trump "shall be held to answer for a capital, or
>> otherwise infamous crime"
>
> He wasn't, scooter. "Held to answer" *means* being charged criminally,
> scooter. Trump wasn't charged criminally, scooter, so he was not "held to
> answer."

Thus he's not prohibited by the 14th Amendment from running for the office.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uomt2g$ubd2$3@dont-email.me...
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:r4CrN.221408$Ama9.64651@fx12.iad:
>
>
>> I can, scooter. I know that "due process" does not mean a criminal
>> trial in and of itself, scooter.
>>
> For instance, Eminent Domain requires Due Process and is NOT a criminal
> matter at all.

True and if Trump was being denied for Eminent Domain.. you would have an
argument.

The disqualifiers are all crimes under US law.. which DOES make it a
criminal matter.

"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.

Proof of the crime comes BEFORE you can impose restrictions for being a
criminal.

"Winston" <wbe@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:yda5oxtibn.fsf@UBEblock.psr.com...
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:24:31 -0800, David Hartung
>> <shithole.starkville@southern.traitors.r.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/21/2024 8:10 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 23:52:50 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the
>>> aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood
>>> that
>>> former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before
>>> the
>>> Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely
>>> did not
>>> seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded
>>> Congress
>>> with _thousands of amnesty requests_ [link in original] to "remove"
>>> their
>>> Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood
>>> themselves to
>>> be disqualified even without a formal adjudication. In addition, the
>>> window
>>> for disqualifying ex-Confederates was small: the Fourteenth Amendment
>>> was
>>> ratified on July 9, 1868, and Congress removed the Section 3
>>> disqualification
>>> for most ex-Confederates less than four years later in the Amnesty Act
>>> of May
>>> 22, 1872 (that statute withheld amnesty from Confederate leaders such as
>>> Jefferson Davis). So while only eight officials have been formally ruled
>>> to
>>> be disqualified under Section 3, thousands more were understood to be
>>> disqualified in the period between the Fourteenth Amendment's
>>> ratification
>>> in 1868 and Congress's passage of the Amnesty Act in 1872 that applied
>>> to
>>> former Confederates.
>>>
>>>https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
>>>
>>>https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Confederate-Amnesty-Petitions-PI_0233_Select-Committee-on-Reconstruction-1867-71.pdf
>>>
>>>Document at the second link has names. Read it.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Rudy! Good job on that one!
>>
>> Swill
>
> Military officers who served the U.S. before the War, who became members
> of the Confederate military during the War, pretty clearly meet the
> criteria, and, because of 14.3, would have been barred from continuing
> to serve in comparable positions after the War. While that doesn't
> apply to enlisted men (14.3 says not just anyone, but members of
> specific groups who have done as described), that could still be
> hundreds or thousands of people from just that group. Their service
> record alone would be sufficient, I would expect.
>
> The people of the time pretty clearly viewed the War as qualifying as an
> insurrection or rebellion, as evidenced by those terms being the ones
> used in the amendment. OTOH, J6 was mostly unarmed people milling about
> and listening to speeches and didn't last for years, so there's
> considerably less agreement among citizenry at large about it qualifying
> as an actual insurrection (as opposed to that term being pushed for the
> express political purpose of being used to keep Trump from ever running
> again).
> -WBE

Further I'm not aware of any person from Jan 6th even accused much less
convicted of insurrection, much less that Trump gave them aid and comfort
during or after the alleged crimes that never occurred.

"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 get back to us when Trump as be "formally adjudicated to be
disqualified and barred from public office under Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment".

Until then.. it's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors based on illusions and
unsupported allegations

"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 that disqualifies him... and then turn
around and assert you don't have to show he was found guilty of committing
the crime as required by the 5th Amendment.

Indeed, I've not even heard that anyone is even considering charging Trump
for such criminal violations much less acting on them.

"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.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
>>> >>> insurrection.
>>> >>
>>> >> Irrelevant.
>>> >
>>> > Totally relevant
>>>
>>> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
>>> "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
>>
>> So far nothing has proven it.
>>>
>>> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
>>> >>>> and convicted of statutory insurrection.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>>> >>
>>> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
>>> >> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
>>> >
>>> > Right,
>>>
>>> Right, scooter.
>>>
>>> > the mythical insurrection
>>>
>>> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
>>> 01/06/2021, scooter.
>>
>> No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
>> didn't try to get Trump.
>>
> ============
> Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
> in court filing

Doesn't make it true.

hence the word "claims".

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.

>
> How can you establish what someone engaged in such without a criminal trial?

Easily. If you want to do it formally, you do it in a civil trial. As I said,
thousands of southern traitors *knew* they were disqualified, which is why they
petitioned to have their disabilities removed by Congress...*not* by a pardon.

> I mean the person has rights.

Not to be eligible for office, scooter.

On 1/23/2024 4:36 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "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.

>
> Hell,

Another scooterism — empty worthless padding.

>>>>
>>>>> much less did so after they were pardoned.
>>>>
>>>> There were no pardons, scooter.
>>>
>>> Then you apparently don't know history
>>
>> There were no pardons issued to people who were disqualified under 14.3 that
>> removed their disqualification, scooter.
>
> Actually there were at least 8 such cases.

There were no such cases, scooter. A pardon did *not* remove a 14.3
disqualification.

>
>> The removal of 14.3 disqualifications could *only* come from Congress, scooter.
>
> Rudy admits he doesn't know the Constitution very well.

I know it fine, scooter, and you do not. 14.3 specifies that only Congress could
remove the disability. A pardon from the executive would not do it. That's
explicitly stated in 14.3, scooter.

>
>> That's why the southern traitors sent their amnesty petitions to Congress,
>> scooter, and not to the pardon office.
>
> They could have sent them to Santa Clause.. since unless they had been
> convicted, they would have no need for any pardon.

That's false, scooter...and a pardon would not have removed the disability.

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, but not necessarily, particularly if
they can be charged with a crime that has a harsher penalty.

Charging people with the crime of insurrection is not what makes the event an
insurrection. If it's not an insurrection — but it was — then participants can't
be charged with insurrection; but if it is an insurrection, they need not
necessarily be charged with it.

>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What we do know is that NO ONE was ever found guilty of
>>>> >>> insurrection.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Irrelevant.
>>>> >
>>>> > Totally relevant
>>>>
>>>> No, irrelevant, scooter. Charges filed for insurrection is not what
>>>> "proves" that the event was an insurrection, scooter.
>>>
>>> So far nothing has proven it.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> It was an insurrection regardless of whether anyone is charged
>>>> >>>> and convicted of statutory insurrection.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> IOW who cares if there was actually any insurrection?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There was one, regardless of whether or not anyone was charged
>>>> >> with the statutory crime of insurrection.
>>>> >
>>>> > Right,
>>>>
>>>> Right, scooter.
>>>>
>>>> > the mythical insurrection
>>>>
>>>> No, not mythical, scooter. The real one that Trump incited on
>>>> 01/06/2021, scooter.
>>>
>>> No emails, no phone calls, nothing. No proof at all. That's why they
>>> didn't try to get Trump.
>>>
>> ============
>> Jan. 6 attack was 'exactly' what Trump intended, special counsel claims
>> in court filing
>
> Doesn't make it true.

But it is true, scooter.