When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Now, Ms. Winston's Twitter feed is pretty much exactly what you'd expect. An exact mirror of Braineack's participation in this thread, only with the political polarity inverted.
But that doesn't matter.
What does matter is her lack of understanding of the law.
For starters, if Fani Willis does go after The Donald, defamation is a civil tort in the US. Want an example of civil tort litigation? Turn on Judge Judy. You don't get "convicted" on civil torts, you get ordered to pay restitution. And, moreover, there can be no deprivation of liberty administered as a punishment. No imprisonment, no disenfranchisement.
Second, and perhaps more relevant, is her assumption that "A conviction in Georgia would bar Trump from the 2024 election." Because that's just... completely false. Trump could be convicted of rape and murder tomorrow, and sentenced to life in prison without parole, and he would still be eligible to run for President.
Not only is there nothing at all to prevent Trump from running for (and potentially winning) the 2024 election, but a considerable amount of ink has been spilled in analyzing exactly how the process would work after such a win. How the process of Trump pardoning himself would function, how he could simply order the DOJ to cease any ongoing or future prosecutions,
It's important to remember that, when having conversations with people who have strongly far-left or far-right political convictions, their perception of reality does not necessarily correlate with what reality actually is.
Last edited by Joe Perez; Aug 11, 2023 at 09:36 PM.
Reason: schpelling
Not only is there nothing at all to prevent Trump from running for (and potentially winning) the 2024 election...
Joe,
I believe you're wrong here. The reason the left pushes the "insurrection" mantra is that the Fourteenth Amendment bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. If J6 were just a protest or even a "riot", that portion of 14A would not apply.
It's important to remember that, when having conversations with people who have strongly far-left or far-right political convictions, their perception of reality does not necessarily correlate with what reality actually is.
The reason the left pushes the "insurrection" mantra is that the Fourteenth Amendment bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. If J6 were just a protest or even a "riot", that portion of 14A would not apply.
I believe you're wrong here. The reason the left pushes the "insurrection" mantra is that the Fourteenth Amendment bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. If J6 were just a protest or even a "riot", that portion of 14A would not apply.
That guy in the Bison hat looked DANGEROUS! I just don't understand why everyone in the insurrection forgot their assault rifles and hand grenades.
It looks like the same guy who left cocaine at the White House also left the pipe bombs...no possible chance of knowing who did it, I guess.
I believe you're wrong here. The reason the left pushes the "insurrection" mantra is that the Fourteenth Amendment bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. If J6 were just a protest or even a "riot", that portion of 14A would not apply.
he, nor the other 1,006 J6 political prisoners, have yet to be charged with anything close to relating to an insurrection. all media outlets now refer to it as a "riot"
he, nor the other 1,006 J6 political prisoners, have yet to be charged with anything close to relating to an insurrection. all media outlets now refer to it as a "riot"
poormxdad's comment has gotten me to brushing up on the Reconstruction Acts in general, and in so doing, I've found that one person has, in fact, been so charged.
Specifically, county commissioner Couy Griffin, of Otero County NM, has been found by the 1st Judicial District Court of Sante Fe to be in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for his actions at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. He was removed from office in Sep 22 by Judge Francis J. Mathew, and has been ruled permanently ineligible to hold any public office, and thus enjoined for life. Griffin's appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court has already been dismissed.
Good point. How can NM charge someone for what they allegedly did out of the state with a federal crime. Unless , it's in the state constitution, they can hold him from holding public office in the state but not other states or federal, etc.
Or maybe I just don't know **** about how all this works. Or maybe NM doesn't care how it works and are flexing their muscle against someone they don't like?
it's not a charge per say. He was sued to be removed from office based on Constitutional grounds. the court found that participating with the FBI on J6 was an insurrection, so therefore they banned him from office.
Yes, the 1st Judicial District Court of Sante Fe is a state court.
The US Constitution applies to the States as well, and Amendment 14 Section 3 specifically calls out "...an executive or judicial officer of any State"
Originally Posted by hector
Good point. How can NM charge someone for what they allegedly did out of the state with a federal crime.
They didn't charge him with a Federal crime. They accused him with violating the US Constitution, which applies to the states as well.
“FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, said during oral arguments on Aug. 8 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Millions dead because of the fucked-up games Fauci, the WHO and the FDA decided to play, raising politics over science.
"Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency for the remainder of the term, as it is the norm over there. Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis."
They didn't charge him with a Federal crime. They accused him with violating the US Constitution, which applies to the states as well.
Help me understand here because I clearly don't. A "crime" was committed outside of NM. NM is charging someone of this not through the federal court system but through the state system. Yes, the constitution applies to the states, that I get. But it was my understanding before this that a "crime" committed outside of a state was tried by that state (or in this case D.C. which I don't pretend to know how that would work) or by federal courts in say the state this person was from.
You're saying that state court rulings can ban him from holding public office nationwide? That I just don't understand but if you say so, I'll believe you. I dropped out of high school while you actually took some law classes in the communist indoctrination program, I mean, uh, higher education.
Question. The Trump indictment that he knowingly lied about the election being stolen appears to allow his defense to pour over and expose all the evidence pointing to election fraud. If they're successful in casting doubt it was a clean and fair election, does that mean J6 wasn't an insurrection?
Question. The Trump indictment that he knowingly lied about the election being stolen appears to allow his defense to pour over and expose all the evidence pointing to election fraud. If they're successful in casting doubt it was a clean and fair election, does that mean J6 wasn't an insurrection?
all hypotenuses must be proven....
and what exactly did you state above is illegal? lying isn't a crime.
Help me understand here because I clearly don't. A "crime" was committed outside of NM. NM is charging someone of this not through the federal court system but through the state system. Yes, the constitution applies to the states, that I get. But it was my understanding before this that a "crime" committed outside of a state was tried by that state (or in this case D.C. which I don't pretend to know how that would work) or by federal courts in say the state this person was from.
You're saying that state court rulings can ban him from holding public office nationwide? That I just don't understand but if you say so, I'll believe you. I dropped out of high school while you actually took some law classes in the communist indoctrination program, I mean, uh, higher education.
they ruled a bunch of unarmed tourists following the lead of undercover agents like Ray Epps was an "insurrection" (notice the use of quotes throughout that document) mounted to try to disenfranchise millions of people and attack the constitution. Couy participated in it, so therefore he cant hold office.
The big issue here is the absolute loose interpretation of an insurrection coming from the State.
0
