Someone told me today that the unnecessary comments were a R hit piece. I kept a straight face and didn't bother to mention that the whole insurrection thing is a HUGE D hit.
Question :
- Thread starter Hijinx
- Start date
Plus Hur laid out everything Joe did wrong and could be charged for. The only way he could give Joe a pass is to say he (Hur) likely wouldn't get a conviction based on jury sympathy of Joe's diminished mental capacity.Someone told me today that the unnecessary comments were a R hit piece. I kept a straight face and didn't bother to mention that the whole insurrection thing is a HUGE D hit.
I’ll be happy to sit on the jury.
18 USC 2383.
It's not like he ended the report with a
Pretty sure the first criminalization for insurrection came about with the Confiscation Act of 1862. Here is a link to the text of the act.
He also said to me that it was a low blow to question the death of his son. I asked, you mean the one that died in Afghanistan? He said yes. So I told him that he actually died at Walter Reed of cancer, brought on by his time over there. Him
He countered with, you know both of his sons had drug issues (I wasn't aware of Beau's issues) and I laughed and told him EVERYONE knows about Hunter!
That pretty much ended the conversation.
Just thinking out loud about Hur. (Appointed by Trump but nominated by Delaware's two Dem Senators.) He's interviewing Biden for 5-6 hours. He's a prosecutor so answers he's getting likely don't jive with the questions he's confident he already knows the answers to. So as a good prosecutor, he starts pulling that thread. As the interview unravels, it becomes apparent Joe's mental state is an issue.
Why is Hur's observations gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate? Because Kamala, a former prosecutor, said so? Judge Jennie and Harold almost got into it yesterday. Harold (law school grad but never practiced) basically agreed with Kamala. The Judge looked at him saying prosecutors do it all the time. Harold was dug in and the Judge wasn't having any of it. Good thing they cut to commercial.
Why is Hur's observations gratuitous, inaccurate and inappropriate? Because Kamala, a former prosecutor, said so? Judge Jennie and Harold almost got into it yesterday. Harold (law school grad but never practiced) basically agreed with Kamala. The Judge looked at him saying prosecutors do it all the time. Harold was dug in and the Judge wasn't having any of it. Good thing they cut to commercial.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
All these questions are public information if you would take the time to read and inform yourself
Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot
The decision marks the first time a court has found former President Donald Trump to be ineligible to return to the White House due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
www.cbsnews.com
Clem72
Well-Known Member
I already told you I can't read, you got a bad memory.All these questions are public information if you would take the time to read and inform yourself
Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot
The decision marks the first time a court has found former President Donald Trump to be ineligible to return to the White House due to his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
Well listen to the radio and stop asking stupid questions anyone with an opinion on this topic should already know.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Quick Take On SCOTUS Colorado “Insurrection” Oral Argument: Trump Likely To Stay On Ballot
Making predictions based on oral arguments normally is risky, but I’ll take that risk: The Supreme Court will reverse not on the merits of whether Trump committed insurrection (that is not before them), but on any one of a number of issues raised that the Colorado Supreme Court exceeded it’s authority, including among others,
- Section 3 only bars holding office, not running for office so it’s premature to consider the issue, particularly since Trump could be relieved of any disability by congressional vote after the election but before taking office (I think this is the clear winner);
- Trump (as President) was not an “officer” of the United States and the Office of the President is not enumerated in Section 3;
- Section 3 is not self-executing, congress provides the remedy, and there is a congressional insurrection act under which Trump has not even been charged.
- States don’t get to decide this question, leaving open the possibility of conflicting state rulings.
That’s not a complete catalog, but the high points that jumped out at me.
Even many lefty legal observers see this as a lost cause:
Interesting. By following that law the Colorado Supreme Court is interfering with the Federal election and therefore guilty of insurrection and should be removed from the bench.
Actually, THIS is the part that most confounds me.
Is something an insurrection because the press calls it that? You Google "insurrection" and everything goes to J6 - unless you want a definition - which is that an insurrection is in simplest terms, an armed rebellion intended to overthrow a government.
Well no one was armed, except the cops. Some guns were found around the Capitol grounds, but there wasn't any shooting going during the occupation of the Capitol. Video doesn't show hordes of crazed people smashing and looting - most of them are annoyingly peaceful - people walking about the Rotunda taking selfies. Fights with law enforcement but most of that occurred outside.
They DID want to stop Pence - but no one dreamed of overthrowing the government, nor did that pitiful crowd have any chance of doing so.
It's why no one is charged with "insurrection". An insurrection is a legal term, and it isn't a riot with bursts of violence.
Every syllable out of a Democras mouth is flush with utter bull####.
To them, words only mean what they WANT them to mean.
I liked the arguments coming from Ketangi Brown Jackson.
Trump finds unlikely ally on 14th Amendment disqualification in Ketanji Brown Jackson
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emerged as an unlikely ally of former President Trump on Thursday when the Supreme Court heard arguments over an effort to block Trump from Colorado’s R…
thehill.com
Some bits ---
The Civil War-era provision was originally designed to prevent ex-Confederates from returning to power, and Jackson, the first Black woman to ascend to the nation’s highest court, suggested that the clause’s explicit language suggests the drafters were more worried about Southern states sending insurrectionists to Congress than one being elected president.
“Can you speak to the argument that really Section 3 was about preventing the South from rising again in the context of these sort of local elections, as opposed to focusing on the presidency,” Jackson asked.
___________________________________________________
The Colorado voters suing to kick Trump off the state’s ballot contend the ban applies because it includes a catchall category, reaching “any office, civil or military, under the United States,” which they argue includes the presidency.
“Why didn’t they put the word president in the very enumerated list in Section 3,” Jackson asked Jason Murray, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “The thing that really is troubling to me … they were listing people that were barred, and ‘president’ is not there.”
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trump’s arguments weren’t all met with Jackson’s apparent support. Her final question for Trump’s lawyer pointedly asked whether the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, in his view, was an insurrection. .....
“The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the violent attempts of the petitioner’s supporters … qualified as an insurrection as defined by Section 3 … what is your position?” Jackson asked.
Mitchell responded that Trump “never accepted or conceded” in court filings that the riot was an insurrection, instead contending that Trump did not engage in any act that can “plausibly be characterized as an insurrection.”
Jackson jumped in to interject: “If the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection —”
“But we didn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson,” Mitchell quickly rebutted.
“None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section 3,” the Trump lawyer said.
Texas, OK, ID, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY, NE, KS, NV, AZ, AK, AR, MO, IA, WV, NC, SC, GA, TN, KY, FL, AL, MS, OH, and IN can throw Biden off the ballot and there went 268 electoral votes.
Get one of the apportioned votes in Maine and the 269-269 tie goes to the House for resolution.