Two Federalist Society legal scholars try to disqualify Trump for his support of Jan 6.

That is not "the fact".

 

This is delusional gibberish.

 

It's your sentence.

 

There was NO insurrection.

show me evidence trump conspired with his cabinet, military leaders to take over the government via force. No evidence of it and why DOJ never charged him.

He was unpresidential and irresponsible by making a speech and getting people riled up? Sure, that is reasonable. He said in his speech ‘fight like hell’. This is the proof? Then we we’ve had a lot of criminals through history as many have used the word ‘fight’ figuratively in speeches, it’s actually pretty common. Trump also said ‘protest peacefully’ in that very same speech. You deranged trump haters then attempt to ‘de-code’ hidden meanings, like trump meant take over capitol via force.

gosh, this sounds just like the russia collusion BS and the trump phone call to ukraine BS. All radical and crazy stuff, none of which holds any water

 

Their are legitimate ways to challenge election results you know.

 

Nobody is complaining about Trump's 50+ lawsuits in various states.

 

There is no difference between Liberal and Progressive.

 

It was an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power. That, by definition, is insurrection. Or do you prefer 'attempted coup'?

 

Wrong, look up definition of insurrection. That’s first. Second, show me evidence trump actually ordered the rioters to storm capital and no, you can’t tell me ‘well trump said that but he really meant this’.

DOJ wanted badly to charge trump with insurrection but they couldn’t. Why? No evidence. Got it? This is not even debatable, it’s fact. No evidence.

it’s like me saying ‘i hate that guy, i wish nothing good on him’ and then some crazy nut killing the person. I would never be charged with murder as i didn’t order it. You all are nuts, deranged.. trump owns your mind

 

Nor did I attribute such a thing to you. Calm down.

 

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Section 5 of the 14th amendment.

 

Yes, there is. A BIG difference.

 

But Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress already has acquitted Trump of insurrection. ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

 

Aw so you are wholly unaware of the fact that creating a list of alternative electors as Al Bore did in 2000 is the first step in a legal challenge to election results in congress.

 

That's not comparable, as had the Supreme Court chosen Gore instead of having chosen Bush, Gore would need to have been prepared with electors.

That's obviously legal.

What Republicans did in more than one state was establish electors not representative of the outcome of the election in that state.

 

I believe the Federalist Society and the leading constitutional experts are aware of Section 5.

Congress has the power of impeachment only.

The crimes of Trump were not adequately investigated between Jan 6 and Jan 20. And, within that period, impeachment would be ridiculous.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous. Because Congress doesn't have time to impeach then no impeachment occurs. It doesn't mean that a state court can take up the mantle years later and attempt to enforce the amendment against what the amendment itself prescribes. If you listened to the supreme court it was obvious that the justices thought that allowing the states to enforce the amendment was a disastrous idea. It was clear that they didn't want one or some states to affect a national election in that manner.

They obviously think that enforcement belongs at the federal level and so does any reasonable person. So I guess I would suggest that the Federalist Society and leading constitutional experts are not reasonable and are likely partisans in a small legal minority. Legal opinions are just that. They are opinions. You will get the one that counts when the supreme court releases its opinion.

 

I think you're getting the different issues mixed.

Courts aren't "taking up the mantle". They had jurisdiction regardless of whether there was an impeachment.

Yes, some in the court's oral argument session did express that concern.

Of course, the constitution still includes the section 3 statement, and conservatives have always stated that strict adherence to the words of the constitution is what the SC is REQUIRED to do.

What you are asking is that the Supreme Court must ignore the constitution. That is SHOCKING.

Do you really believe that?

Have you thought about where that would lead?

 

Exactly the same if you are going to challenge the election you have to have alternate electors in place by mid December according to the process laid out in the constitution.

 

That would have been ok. But, it's not what was tried by Republican leadership in some states.

They tried to replace electors regardless of the election outcome - an attempt to defeat democracy.

 

False. That is not what was done though in their desperate attempt to hang on to power there is no lie that the Democratic leadership will not try.

 

This post reminds me of how none of the Peoples Temple followers of Jim Jones believed they were in a mindless cult.

 

You tried to do the dishonest word substitution. I said they found he was "involved in the insurrection" and you changed it to "he wasn't found guilty of insurrection".

 

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

Not a bit of difference. Progressive is a substitute for Liberal, since wingnuts spent the past 4 decades besmirching the term Liberal, and Liberals couldn't find the balls to fight back.