Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot

[Sargonski]

Cite from anything that says a criminal conviction is required to remove someone from the ballot.

Are you haveing trouble figuring out that insurgency is a criminal offence friend ? -- and you can't kick someone off the ballot for "insurgency" unless they have been convicted of the offense for which they are being booted.

you have to be convicted of insurgency .. in order to get booted off the ballot silly .. never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" .. thats a Rule ya know ... Rule of Law..

but once again .. so we don't get lost .. insurgency is a criminal offence .. so to be convicted of insurgency .. is to be convicted of a criminal offence. Tough connection for some to get I know .. but, glad to be of service.

 

[F1fan]

Are you haveing trouble figuring out that insurgency is a criminal offence friend ? -- and you can't kick someone off the ballot for "insurgency" unless they have been convicted of the offense for which they are being booted.

you have to be convicted of insurgency .. in order to get booted off the ballot silly .. never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" .. thats a Rule ya know ... Rule of Law..

Can you cite the law that asserts this? The reporting I see states that there has never been a case before the Supreme Court, but perhaps you know of one.

but once again .. so we don't get lost .. insurgency is a criminal offence .. so to be convicted of insurgency .. is to be convicted of a criminal offence. Tough connection for some to get I know .. but, glad to be of service.

This is a claim that you haven't been able to support with any actual authority of law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not ignore the post .. your claim that your link showed "Bogus definition" is pure falsehood. Cite from your link where it showed my definition of mens rea was "Bogus"

What a made up ridiculous falsehood on your part friend.. especially given I agreed with the definition in your link .. are you simply confused or is intentionally making false accusations "Strawman fallacy" your main deflection tactic.. that we have seen before so many times.

Need to up your Game Sub D .. now lets get to the citation for you and for me .. so we can at least have a small chuckle at your failed expense

No need. I wrote the post. It is still there. If you don't do your own homework you cannot demand that others do it for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

how is the constitution against trump .. pure nonsense you are talking. The Constitution is what back's Trump up .. the Kangaroo Blue clown car 3rd world justice system that is the anathema to the constitution . explained to you previously .. in great detail. .. but clearly to no avail

There you go sounding like a creationist again. None of the lower courts think that they will be the last word in this. So how could they be "kangaroo courts". Please quit using phrases that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cite from anything that says a criminal conviction is required.

He doesn't do sites. He thinks that he is a source. I have requested multiple times that he finds a valid source. That is what I did. I used a neutral source that showed his interpretation of mens rea was wrong. He ignored the post. Now he demands that I do his homework for him.

I also found precedent of others that were taken off the ballot. One was not guilty of any crimes at all. He was not in the Confederate Army, he but he was still banned from holding office. He ignored that as well.


I suppose one has to ignore the case law and sources one demands if one wants to keep making the same false claims.

 

[Sargonski]

Can you cite the law that asserts this? The reporting I see states that there has never been a case before the Supreme Court, but perhaps you know of one.

This is a claim that you haven't been able to support with any actual authority of law.

Your absolutely confused friend .. case law that asserts what ? In every case you have to be convicted prior to punishment. One can not be barred from running for electoral office for insurgency .. prior to being convicted of insurgency.

What part of the above claim is not supported by authority of law ? "Innocent until proven guilty" what you are talking is pure nonsense .. claiming that one can be punished prior to being convicted .. Thats is not how things work friend ... got things all backwards and confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you haveing trouble figuring out that insurgency is a criminal offence friend ? -- and you can't kick someone off the ballot for "insurgency" unless they have been convicted of the offense for which they are being booted.

you have to be convicted of insurgency .. in order to get booted off the ballot silly .. never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" .. thats a Rule ya know ... Rule of Law..

but once again .. so we don't get lost .. insurgency is a criminal offence .. so to be convicted of insurgency .. is to be convicted of a criminal offence. Tough connection for some to get I know .. but, glad to be of service.

Incredibly wrong. Too bad that you always ignore the sources that refute you on this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your absolutely confused friend .. case law that asserts what ? In every case you have to be convicted prior to punishment. One can not be barred from running for electoral office for insurgency .. prior to being convicted of insurgency.

What part of the above claim is not supported by authority of law ? "Innocent until proven guilty" what you are talking is pure nonsense .. claiming that one can be punished prior to being convicted .. Thats is not how things work friend ... got things all backwards and confused.

Gee, I posted about this too. And provided a link. It is still there.

 

[Sargonski]

There you go sounding like a creationist again. None of the lower courts think that they will be the last word in this. So how could they be "kangaroo courts". Please quit using phrases that you do not understand.

Sorry friend .. we are not talking about the kangaroo's on Noah's ark .. Mens Rea .. u understand .. you claimed a bogus definition based on this link of yours. What part of Post where it says my definition is bogus .. did you not understand ?

 

[fantome profane]

Are you haveing trouble figuring out that insurgency is a criminal offence friend ? -- and you can't kick someone off the ballot for "insurgency" unless they have been convicted of the offense for which they are being booted.

you have to be convicted of insurgency .. in order to get booted off the ballot silly .. never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" .. thats a Rule ya know ... Rule of Law..

but once again .. so we don't get lost .. insurgency is a criminal offence .. so to be convicted of insurgency .. is to be convicted of a criminal offence. Tough connection for some to get I know .. but, glad to be of service.

I notice the complete lack of citation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry friend .. we are not talking about the kangaroo's on Noah's ark .. Mens Rea .. u understand .. you claimed a bogus definition based on this link of yours. What part of Post where it says my definition is bogus .. did you not understand ?

Every time that you use ad hominems that you cannot support you lose. And do your homework. Or you could honestly apologize and admit that you did not do what you are supposed to do when debating on a thread. I am not doing your work for you.

By the way, if anyone wants the link with case law for disqualification PM me and I can share it with you and point out which case really refutes what is being claimed. For those that deny this though and ignored the post, an earnest apology where one admitted that he screwed up by not checking out supplied links would do nicely.

Sarg, when you debate on line you need to be ready to find valid sources that support your claims. If all you can do is to shout and claim superior knowledge no one will believe you. Well except for some other far right victims of TDS.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm just going to throw this out there.....

The senate has already acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm just going to throw this out there.....

The senate has already acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

That is a political court, not a criminal court.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm just going to throw this out there.....

The senate has already acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

Nice toss. But what is your point?

Do you remember when Mitch McConnell said
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day."

Or when he said
"If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge."

And most importantly when he said this
"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

The Senate did not make Trump immune from criminal charges.

 

[We Never Know]

Nice toss. But what is your point?

Do you remember when Mitch McConnell said
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day."

Or when he said
"If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge."

And most importantly when he said this
"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

The Senate did not make Trump immune from criminal charges.

That is a political court, not a criminal court.

That doesn't change the fact that the senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't change the fact that the senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

So what?

 

[McBell]

That doesn't change the fact that the senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

And?
Since it has no bearing on his current trial...
As was already asked, So What?

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn't change the fact that the senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

That is indeed a fact.
It's also a fact that 52100 steel is useful to make bearings.
Both are equally relevant regarding Trump's failed coup.

 

[Sargonski]

Gee, I posted about this too. And provided a link. It is still there.

You provided a link but made false claims about what your link said ... Gee ..

You claimed my definition of mens rea was bogus according to this link .. so post from this link where it says what you claim. Sorry friend - lying about your opponents claims is not going to make the fact that you are wong any less True.

Prove your claim and show us that you are not intentionally lying -- cite from your link where my definition of mens rea is shown to be bogus - or admit your claim was a made up falsehood.

 

[F1fan]

That doesn't change the fact that the senate acquitted Trump for incitement of insurrection with the second impeachment acquittal.

And let's not ignore that many republicans were afraid to convict him because they were in fear of Trump's crazy followers. They had experienced what Trump's follers were capable of doing during the Jan 6 event. This was revealed in Mitt Romney's book. McConnell said that the conviction should be in a court of law which wasn't the role of congress, which was political. That seemed like a copout to me, and the ongoing shoe licking by most republicans in regards to Trump. Romney is not running again due to the ongoing threats and expense for security.