The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,095
Total Cats: 6,633
I came across an interesting example of the far-left not understanding how any of this actually works:
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.
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; 08-11-2023 at 09:36 PM. Reason: schpelling
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,095
Total Cats: 6,633
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.
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.
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 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.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,095
Total Cats: 6,633
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.
Here is the full ruling: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp...73-griffin.pdf
So that's interesting.
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?
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?
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,095
Total Cats: 6,633
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"
They didn't charge him with a Federal crime. They accused him with violating the US Constitution, which applies to the states as well.
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"
They didn't charge him with a Federal crime. They accused him with violating the US Constitution, which applies to the states as well.
The FDA says your doctors can now prescribe Ivermectin for Covid. Suddenly.
“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.
“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.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,095
Total Cats: 6,633
Donald Trump's freedom of speech must be limited, in order to ensure that we may prosecute him.
That's the TL;DR version. The full hit-piece here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...an-6-evidence/
That's the TL;DR version. The full hit-piece here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...an-6-evidence/
"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."
May 2010 intercepted letter, by Osama Bin Ladin.
THIS IS BIGGER THAN HUNTER BIDEN – AND EVEN JOE BIDEN
I still don't think anything will come of it...
May 2010 intercepted letter, by Osama Bin Ladin.
THIS IS BIGGER THAN HUNTER BIDEN – AND EVEN JOE BIDEN
I still don't think anything will come of it...
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?
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
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?
and what exactly did you state above is illegal? lying isn't a crime.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,517
Total Cats: 4,080
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.
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.
The big issue here is the absolute loose interpretation of an insurrection coming from the State.