Big Lie Two Is Here, and It’s Far More Insidious Than Big Lie One

[T. A. Gardner]

Nope, no lie at all.

Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath,as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

And, exactly where and when was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the US? By your standard, Biden giving a bribe to get hostages back from Iran an enemy of the US and terrorist state, could fall under this amendment.

 

[domer76]

And, exactly where and when was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the US? By your standard, Biden giving a bribe to get hostages back from Iran an enemy of the US and terrorist state, could fall under this amendment.

Illiterate fuck. The amendment is silent on conviction.

No bribe. More RW squawking points.

You’re stupid.

 

[Lionfish]

Illiterate fuck. The amendment is silent on conviction.

No bribe. More RW squawking points.

You’re stupid.

Why are you so afraid?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Illiterate fuck. The amendment is silent on conviction.

No bribe. More RW squawking points.

You’re stupid.

Ah! The Left for you! No trial necessary, off to the gulag you go! How Stalinist of you! Nice to know you like fascism, dictatorships, and arbitrary government diktat.

 

[domer76]

Ah! The Left for you! No trial necessary, off to the gulag you go! How Stalinist of you! Nice to know you like fascism, dictatorships, and arbitrary government diktat.

You don’t even comprehend our own system of government, dumbfuck, much less Stalinism.

Squawking RW bullshit again, parrot.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

There has been no new evidence that has been uncovered all of the evidence he is being charged with they have had for years.

However instead of charging him they waited until election time to drop four separate indictments on him all within the space of two months.

Any of these indictments could have been filed over the last two and a half years and in fact those cases should have already been resolved by now but they held them all back until now to specifically interfere with Trumps election.

It’s beyond obvious what the left is doing here.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[domer76]

There has been no new evidence that has been uncovered all of the evidence he is being charged with they have had for years.

However instead of charging him they waited until election time to drop four separate indictments on him all within the space of two months.

Any of these indictments could have been filed over the last two and a half years and in fact those cases should have already been resolved by now but they held them all back until now to specifically interfere with Trumps election.

It’s beyond obvious what the left is doing here.

Yep. Bringing a criminal to justice. Finally.

 

[QP!]

And, exactly where and when was Trump convicted of insurrection or rebellion against the US? By your standard, Biden giving a bribe to get hostages back from Iran an enemy of the US and terrorist state, could fall under this amendment.

The law does not call for conviction.

If you try to run for POTUS at age 25, you will be blocked with no need for 'conviction for not being age 35 or above', in a court of law.

This is simply a rule administered by the State officials who administer such rules.

The boundaries of which, do however have to be set by the Supreme Court. But there is no impropriety in bringing these cases so the SC can adjudicate those boundaries.

What is clear, which the SC tends to follow, is that the framers of that Amendment, DID NOT intend it to be based on a legal finding as they would have said 'upon conviction in a suitable court of law' or some such.

The Framers were not stupid and know the difference between a legal standard and a political one, and this one, clearly, like the proceedings by the House and Senate for Impeachment, were meant to be political, and something they could act on, even if no prosecutable law was broken.

They understood that due to Free Speech a potential POTUS could incite others to attack and over throw the US government all day, every day and never get convicted in a court of law. BUt just as with IMpeachment, it could be obvious and improper and used for political actions... Impeachment or Disqualification.

So the question the SC will have to consider is, can a State AG or similar State official responsible for reviewing eligibility consider and act upon the House findings that Trump was impeached for that FOUND he engaged in Insurrection.

That FINDING exists and is real and Trump was impeached on that so is that enough???

Personally I think the SC will say 'no legal finding is required', but if a State AG is to act upon it, a minimum requirement is not just impeachment but also conviction.

I would agree with that, due to the ability to Republican's to abuse this via House vote only, and we know they would, if they knew they had the votes.

 

[Nordberg]

If the republicans don't have the balls to impeach Biden, what good are they?

It is not about balls. they have no crimes. So they are going for an investigation, which is supposedly looking for crime, but instead is intended to smear Biden on TV and hurt his election chances. This is like the dozen Hillary investigations. It utilizes the old "where there is smoke, there must be fire" adage to hurt Biden.

 

[QP!]

There has been no new evidence that has been uncovered all of the evidence he is being charged with they have had for years.

However instead of charging him they waited until election time to drop four separate indictments on him all within the space of two months.

Any of these indictments could have been filed over the last two and a half years and in fact those cases should have already been resolved by now but they held them all back until now to specifically interfere with Trumps election.

It’s beyond obvious what the left is doing here.

And another example of 'If Tinker is speaking ...Tinker is lying"


It is demonstrable fact that Jack Smith was only appointed in November 18, 2022 (less than one year ago) and that he has unearthed LOTS of new and very damning evidence and QUICKLY charges, within ~6 of being appointed.

So the exact opposite of what you say is the true.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There has been no new evidence that has been uncovered all of the evidence he is being charged with they have had for years.

However instead of charging him they waited until election time to drop four separate indictments on him all within the space of two months.

Any of these indictments could have been filed over the last two and a half years and in fact those cases should have already been resolved by now but they held them all back until now to specifically interfere with Trumps election.

It’s beyond obvious what the left is doing here.

Not sure it is the "left" doing it...I suspect it is the prosecutors who are doing it.

But you are correct. It is obvious what they are doing.

They are doing their job.

They are prosecuting someone who thoroughly deserves prosecution. Trump has earned every moment of prosecution that comes his way.

We all should be hoping that justice prevails...and that he is convicted of the many crimes he has committed...and sentenced to an appropriate punishment.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Hello signalmankenneth,

Yes, it's amazing how many people are still falling for his con.

Many Trumpers now realize Trump is a world-class charlatan but they won't admit it because they would look like a fool swallowing Trump's bullshit for all these years.

I actually considered voting for Trump in 2016 but it didn't take me long to see through his con.
Why has it taken others so long?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is not about balls. they have no crimes. So they are going for an investigation, which is supposedly looking for crime, but instead is intended to smear Biden on TV and hurt his election chances. This is like the dozen Hillary investigations. It utilizes the old "where there is smoke, there must be fire" adage to hurt Biden.

They have more on Bribem than the Democrats had on Trump and the Democrats impeached him twice...

 

[domer76]

They have more on Bribem than the Democrats had on Trump and the Democrats impeached him twice...

Your talking is done. Let’s finally see it, bitch.