Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1
@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> says...
>>
>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
>> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
leftist
>> >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
>> >>insurrection.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
tRump
>> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>>
>> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
>
> Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
>

Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?

Or did you think J. Michael Luttig was a liberal?

What part of "Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum
believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution" do you not understand?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-
ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-
holding-office/

Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
> says...
>>
>> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>> >> "Bradley K. Sherman"� wrote in message
>> >> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
>> >>>>>> less convicted
>> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> |
>> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>> >>>>> |
>> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>> >>>>> | ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
>> >>>> sedition.html>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> |
>> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>> >>>>> | ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
>> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>> >>>
>> >>> No, Scout,� the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.� Let me help
>> >>> you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>> >>>
>> >>> �� --bks
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
>> >> means b u l l s h i t.
>> >
>> > Even then it's still irrelevant.� The defendants would have had to
>> > have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>>
>> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>
> Yes, that's why he's not in jail.

Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
for President of US?

In article <uoeq6h$3ag70$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1
> @usnews.blocknews.net:
>
> > In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
> >> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
> leftist
> >> >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
> >> >>insurrection.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
> tRump
> >> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
> >>
> >> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
> >
> > Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
> >
>
> Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?
>
> Or did you think J. Michael Luttig was a liberal?
>
> What part of "Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum
> believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th
> Amendment of the Constitution" do you not understand?
>
> https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-
> ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-
> holding-office/

I don't really care.

In article <uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
> > In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
> >> >> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message
> >> >> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> ...
> >> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
> >> >>>>>> less convicted
> >> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
> >> >>>>>> ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> |
> >> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
> >> >>>>> |
> >> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
> >> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
> >> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
> >> >>>>> | ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
> >> >>>> sedition.html>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> |
> >> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
> >> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
> >> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
> >> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
> >> >>>>> | ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
> >> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
> >> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help
> >> >>> you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>    --bks
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
> >> >> means b u l l s h i t.
> >> >
> >> > Even then it's still irrelevant.  The defendants would have had to
> >> > have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
> >>
> >> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
> >
> > Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
>
> Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
> for President of US?

Huh?

Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
news:MPG.4014adc5d0303103990dd7@usnews.blocknews.net:

> In article <uoeq6h$3ag70$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> says...
>>
>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>> news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1 @usnews.blocknews.net:
>>
>> > In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>,
>> > bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
>> >>
>> >> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> >> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
>> >> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
>> leftist
>> >> >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
>> >> >>insurrection.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
>> tRump
>> >> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>> >>
>> >> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
>> >
>> > Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
>> >
>>
>> Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?
>>
>> Or did you think J. Michael Luttig was a liberal?
>>
>> What part of "Experts and academics across the ideological spectrum
>> believe that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th
>> Amendment of the Constitution" do you not understand?
>>
>> https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-t
>> he-
>> ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-
>> holding-office/
>
> I don't really care.
>

Ithat's obvious - you don't care about the Constitution, nor actual
democracy - you only care about power.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:04:31 -0700, Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote:

>In article <uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>says...
>>
>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>> news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>
>> > In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>> >> >> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message
>> >> >> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> >> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> ...
>> >> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
>> >> >>>>>> less convicted
>> >> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>> >> >>>>>> ...
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> |
>> >> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>> >> >>>>> |
>> >> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>> >> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>> >> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>> >> >>>>> | ...
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
>> >> >>>> sedition.html>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> |
>> >> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>> >> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>> >> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>> >> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>> >> >>>>> | ...
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
>> >> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>> >> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help
>> >> >>> you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>    --bks
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
>> >> >> means b u l l s h i t.
>> >> >
>> >> > Even then it's still irrelevant.  The defendants would have had to
>> >> > have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>> >>
>> >> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
>>
>> Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
>> for President of US?
>
>Huh?

Arnold is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that makes
him ineligible to run for or be The President of the USA. He was born in
Austria.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me...
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus leftist
>>>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
>>>insurrection.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
>>
>
> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring tRump
> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.

Wouldn't matter if they were the holy ghost.. there is still no basis by
which to do so. Even assuming what you assert is the truth. Which given your
history is a BIG stretch.

1) no insurrection took place
2) no one has been charged with insurrection
3) No one has been convicted of insurrection.

State officials who attempt to impose such, should be sued under 42USC1983
and subject to criminal charges.

> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?

Most people don't care your self delusions Baxter.

Meanwhile speaking of insurrection, what to you call these recent moves by
the DNC to disenfrancis American voters, if they don't vote as the DNC has
directed?

When state officers are told who to put on the ballets
That if in the primary the 'proper' candidate doesn't win how the DNC will
order your electors to change their vote as directed by the DNC.
How they are ignoring laws and ordering the first primary be held in North
Carolina because they think it will look better for their 'chosen one'.

Oh, and when exactly do we get a cognitive test from Biden... I mean it's
clear he is much more mentally impaired than Democrats ever claimed Trump
was.

Who is ACTUALLY running the government now? What shadow government is acting
as the President?

One might even make contrasts in how soviet Russia's government was run.

You're so wrapped up in stomping your feet over Trump that your own party is
effectively trying to strip you of your right to vote.. or at least have it
mean anything.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uoeq6h$3ag70$2@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in news:MPG.40146327bf49cb1d990da1
> @usnews.blocknews.net:
>
>> In article <uoe53g$36mvn$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>> news:6ppkqid1e1ifledoakdngmkakvdidsm7mk@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:40:14 -0500, "Scout"
>>> > <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>A conviction under 2384 means it wasn't insurrection and thus
> leftist
>>> >>have NO basis for their whole assertion that Trump is guilty of
>>> >>insurrection.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > You're interfering with their dystopian view of reality again.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Actually, a large percentage of legal experts calling for barring
> tRump
>>> under 14.3 are conservatives - not liberals. Not dems - Repugs.
>>>
>>> Or maybe you hadn't noticed?
>>
>> Sure haven't seen any proof of it.
>>
>
> Did you miss my Federalist Society reference?

Well shit, 2 whole people have a theoretical issue..

Of course, it's not supported by any actual facts, But hey they have a
theory.. and since you approve of it. that's all you need. Right?

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
> news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
>
>> In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>>> >> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
>>> >> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> ...
>>> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
>>> >>>>>> less convicted
>>> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>> >>>>>> ...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> |
>>> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>> >>>>> |
>>> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>> >>>>> | ...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
>>> >>>> sedition.html>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> |
>>> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>> >>>>> | ...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
>>> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
>>> >>> you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --bks
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
>>> >> means b u l l s h i t.
>>> >
>>> > Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
>>> > have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>>>
>>> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>>
>> Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
>
> Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
> for President of US?

No, because his disqualification isn't a criminal matter as it would be with
Trump.

So yes, you would have to convict Trump of a disqualifying crime if you
actually wanted to keep him from being able to run.

He hasn't been.. so he's not been disqualified.

Baxter lamely attempts to assert equity between two totally different
matters.

"David Hartung" wrote in message news:VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad...
>
>On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>> news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
>>> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>>>
>>>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>>
>>>> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help you:
>>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>>
>>>
>>> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u
>>> l l s h i t.
>>
>> Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to have
>> been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>
>No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>

I know. It's just election interference. Or is it just a huge huge
coincidence?

--
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

"Scout" wrote in message news:uoghdi$3mdt1$5@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>news:uoeqed$3ag70$4@dont-email.me...
>> Skeeter <Skeeterweed@proton.me> wrote in
>> news:MPG.401464f0672fd5b5990da7@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>
>>> In article <VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad>, junk@LCMS_shitbags.org
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> >> "Bradley K. Sherman" wrote in message
>>>> >> news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> >>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> >>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> ...
>>>> >>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much
>>>> >>>>>> less convicted
>>>> >>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>> >>>>>> ...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> |
>>>> >>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>> >>>>> |
>>>> >>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>> >>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>> >>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>> >>>>> | ...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-
>>>> >>>> sedition.html>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> |
>>>> >>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>> >>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>> >>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>> >>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>> >>>>> | ...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-con
>>>> >>>> spiracy-verdict/>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No, Scout, the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>>> >>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means. Let me help
>>>> >>> you: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --bks
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it
>>>> >> means b u l l s h i t.
>>>> >
>>>> > Even then it's still irrelevant. The defendants would have had to
>>>> > have been tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>>>>
>>>> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's why he's not in jail.
>>
>> Do we need a criminal trial to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run
>> for President of US?
>
>No, because his disqualification isn't a criminal matter as it would be
>with Trump.
>
>So yes, you would have to convict Trump of a disqualifying crime if you
>actually wanted to keep him from being able to run.
>
>He hasn't been.. so he's not been disqualified.
>
>Baxter lamely attempts to assert equity between two totally different
>matters.
>

Election interference. It's best to just ignore the crackpots.

--
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 1/25/2024 3:35 PM, Andrea W, lying Nazi troll whore, lied:
> "David Hartung"  wrote in message news:VbxqN.145925$yEgf.127214@fx09.iad...
>>
>> On 1/19/2024 3:40 AM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Andrew W" <space@defense.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uocc3b$2prd1$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> "Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message news:uobgsm$748$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bradley K. Sherman" <bks@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uobbbg$5v6$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Yep, there is not a single person that has been charged much less
>>>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>>>> of insurrection for events on Jan 6th..
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong again, Scout:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First Rudy claims I'm wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | Four Proud Boys Convicted of Sedition in Key Jan. 6 Case
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | The verdict was a blow against the far-right group and
>>>>>>> | another milestone in the Justice Department's prosecution
>>>>>>> | of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol.
>>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/us/politics/jan-6-proud-boys-sedition.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> | The guilty verdict marks the third time that prosecutors
>>>>>>> | have secured convictions for seditious conspiracy in the
>>>>>>> | Justice Department's historic prosecution of those who
>>>>>>> | breached the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
>>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-verdict/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then ends up proving I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Scout,  the only thing proved is that you don't understand
>>>>> what the charge of "seditious conspiracy" means.  Let me help you:
>>>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384>
>>>>>
>>>>>    --bks
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When put forward by a court stacked with woke Dem leftists it means b u l l
>>>> s h i t.
>>>
>>> Even then it's still irrelevant.  The defendants would have had to have been
>>> tried and convicted under 18USC2383
>>
>> No, scooter. No criminal conviction is needed.
>>
>
> I know. It's just election interference.

No, it isn't.