BREAKING: looks like Special Counsel Jack smith is going to indict the GOP members of congress who assisted Trump in conspiring “to overturn the presidential election and overthrow the government.” pic.twitter.com/6GQb46sIQD
Well I don't think 5.2 million appeared out of thin air so yeah, unless you got a better theory.
@agraybee There's actually nothing intellectually noble about debating conservatives, because they don't believe the truth has any inherent value, and so they wrap lies in more lies and the time it takes unravelling their knots of mendacity is better spent doing literally anything else.
Good thing for 'conservatives' that right wing billionaires have already bought off Justices Thomas, Alito and Kav!
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.[/b] “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.” He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
Two law professors active in the Federalist Society wrote that the original meaning of the 14th Amendment makes Donald Trump ineligible to hold government office.
Good thing for 'conservatives' that right wing billionaires have already bought off Justices Thomas, Alito and Kav!
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.[/b] “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.” He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
So what does this mean in practice though? Say the RNC doesn't give a damn and he's on the ballot anyway.. I guess the Ds sue and it goes to the SC. BUT I am not so convinced the SC would side with Trump. This may be the GOP's opportunity to rip the bandaid off and get rid of him with good cover. The question is what do the big donors want? If they don't like Trump or think he's a loser who is no longer a viable candidate then they may destroy him here.
Are aware that there are a number of threads dedicated to Trump? But I think it’s great that most of the posts in this thread are about Trump, and only 1% are about admiration of Biden. It means he continues to live freely in your heads. It’s sad that nobody can say anything about Biden. His press secretary touts Bidenomics, a term about only 30% of the population feels has a positive connotation. We are on the cusp of an epic crash and Biden will be the captain of the capsizing ship.
BREAKING: looks like Special Counsel Jack smith is going to indict the GOP members of congress who assisted Trump in conspiring “to overturn the presidential election and overthrow the government.”
Good thing for 'conservatives' that right wing billionaires have already bought off Justices Thomas, Alito and Kav!
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.[/b] “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.” He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
So what does this mean in practice though? Say the RNC doesn't give a damn and he's on the ballot anyway.. I guess the Ds sue and it goes to the SC. BUT I am not so convinced the SC would side with Trump. This may be the GOP's opportunity to rip the bandaid off and get rid of him with good cover. The question is what do the big donors want? If they don't like Trump or think he's a loser who is no longer a viable candidate then they may destroy him here.
yeah it's funny, right? The Federalist Society IS the conservative political organization that puts right wingers on the court. So if the Federalist Society generally agrees DJT can't Constitutionally be president again...does that give cover to Alito, Thomas, etc to agree, and ban DJT?
Or are the real movers the billionaires who bribe Alito, Thomas, Kav etc? And all those people want are low taxes and a continued attempt to shrink government. They aren't so attentive to Constitional realities - they want their Ayn Rand state and they want it by any means necessary. If they have to bribe and potentially blackmail SCOTUS justices they will do it!
Tricky!
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Well I don't think 5.2 million appeared out of thin air so yeah, unless you got a better theory.
Almost any theory is better.
You haven't looked into this even a little bit. Does it bother you at all that you know absolutely nothing about this entire scandal beyond Biden being a Democrat?
You haven't looked into this even a little bit. Does it bother you at all that you know absolutely nothing about this entire scandal beyond Biden being a Democrat?
does it bother you that the only people who are reporting this story work for a paper dedicated to pushing right wing views and have been caught lying to their readers over and over?
You haven't looked into this even a little bit. Does it bother you at all that you know absolutely nothing about this entire scandal beyond Biden being a Democrat?
does it bother you that the only people who are reporting this story work for a paper dedicated to pushing right wing views and have been caught lying to their readers over and over?
Bother you at all?
No. You said the same thing about the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now. It's still the same story and you're still as oblivious as you were in 2020.
Good thing for 'conservatives' that right wing billionaires have already bought off Justices Thomas, Alito and Kav!
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.[/b] “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.” He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
You lose all credibility in the last paragraph. Most of what is in the last paragraph is conjecture. You need to prove that Trump knew he had lost and that he didn’t believe that the election had been stolen. If it was his belief that the election had been stolen (which all evidence supports), then his behavior is justified. A protest is not a crime. He did not encourage violence. Remaining silent is not a crime.
Good thing for 'conservatives' that right wing billionaires have already bought off Justices Thomas, Alito and Kav!
Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.[/b] “When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.” He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”
There is, the article said, “abundant evidence” that Mr. Trump engaged in an insurrection, including by setting out to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, trying to alter vote counts by fraud and intimidation, encouraging bogus slates of competing electors, pressuring the vice president to violate the Constitution, calling for the march on the Capitol and remaining silent for hours during the attack itself.
You lose all credibility in the last paragraph. Most of what is in the last paragraph is conjecture. You need to prove that Trump knew he had lost and that he didn’t believe that the election had been stolen. If it was his belief that the election had been stolen (which all evidence supports), then his behavior is justified. A protest is not a crime. He did not encourage violence. Remaining silent is not a crime.
dude, these are established right wing, conservative constitutional scholars. You want to say you are smarter than them on the Constitution and Trump's actions during and after the election, you can go ahead and say that but it will just make us snigger.
You lose all credibility in the last paragraph. Most of what is in the last paragraph is conjecture. You need to prove that Trump knew he had lost and that he didn’t believe that the election had been stolen. If it was his belief that the election had been stolen (which all evidence supports), then his behavior is justified. A protest is not a crime. He did not encourage violence. Remaining silent is not a crime.
dude, these are established right wing, conservative constitutional scholars. You want to say you are smarter than them on the Constitution and Trump's actions during and after the election, you can go ahead and say that but it will just make us snigger.
That's them talking, not me.
And you always agree with Dershowitz and Turley because they're left wing liberal constitutional scholars right?
does it bother you that the only people who are reporting this story work for a paper dedicated to pushing right wing views and have been caught lying to their readers over and over?
Bother you at all?
No. You said the same thing about the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now. It's still the same story and you're still as oblivious as you were in 2020.
ok, so now we know what a moran adult is. He agrees he is fine believing news from people who have been caught lying over and over again. He is fine being lied to. He wishes to make no effort to filter his news. If the news source is on team red, he believes it wholeheartedly.
A very pure example of:
@agraybee There's actually nothing intellectually noble about debating conservatives, because they don't believe the truth has any inherent value, and so they wrap lies in more lies and the time it takes unravelling their knots of mendacity is better spent doing literally anything else.
No. You said the same thing about the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now. It's still the same story and you're still as oblivious as you were in 2020.
ok, so now we know what a moran adult is. He agrees he is fine believing news from people who have been caught lying over and over again. He is fine being lied to. He wishes to make no effort to filter his news. If the news source is on team red, he believes it wholeheartedly.
A very pure example of:
@agraybee There's actually nothing intellectually noble about debating conservatives, because they don't believe the truth has any inherent value, and so they wrap lies in more lies and the time it takes unravelling their knots of mendacity is better spent doing literally anything else.
What have they lied about? If you're referring to the lawsuit MSNBC made the same admission in court when Rachel Maddow got sued.
The laptop is real. The bank statements are real. The suspicious activity reports from treasury are real. Biden has been caught lying on camera 50000 times about this. He's in photos with Hunter's business partners. Hunter's business partners visited the White House dozens of times.