Democrat Clown Car Unloads At Senate

HF you are wrong. You wrote all that and continue to be wrong.

The meaning of your clause you wonder about is pretty simple. It limits what can be done to a person to removal of office and preclusion from attaining another office. It means they can criminalize the behavior or jail someone. It limits the punishments to political punishment only.



No, the purpose of questing the clause is whether or not you must meet the first test of conviction before you can meet the second, disqualification. This was confirmed to me by an article in the morning paper and a well respected lawyer on Fox News both saying that without conviction, they can't disqualify. I think they are wrong and that is the point I was making. There is debate on whether you can disqualify without conviction.


You other question of the SC involvement I have doubts. The political question doctrine would likely be invoked and the court would deny justifiability.



And that is what we will find out after acquittal. If the Democrats fail to invoke section 3 of the 14th Amendment, saying it only takes a simple majority to disqualify a President that in the opinion of the majority was involved in an insurrection. If the Democrats fail to do this, they will have decided that invoking that clause would not pass legal muster even though some very big named Constitutional scholars suggest they can and could be successful.


Again this is a political process and the fact that the DoJ or state can bring charges is irrelevant to the political process so without the ability to have a political impeachment and trial there would be no political punishment if the person resigns or their term expires. You’re too caught up with other processes. There are actions a president (for instance) can do that might not be statutorily illegal but surely unconstitutional and impeachable.


If it were un-Constitutional, it would be a crime.



There still will be no political punishment just like the last time because he will be acquitted, unless the 14th amendment question comes into play. We know this because 44 Senators have already stated that the trial is un-Constitutional and all the evidence in the world isn't going to change the fact that they find the trial un-Constitutonal. It's comparable to a jury having all the evidence needed to convict but are told that some of the evidence that is indeed true and damning, was gained without a warrant and therefore can not be used and will result in an acquittal even though everybody has seen the evidence of guilt.


What if a president knowing he’s likely to lose his race activates, for national security purposes, the military and blocks roads in and around swing districts in select congressional races to negatively affect voting to ensure a Democrat house or senate.


I don't know whether you had "Bridgegate" in mind when you chose that scenario but that question has already been answered.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/07/polit...ion/index.html


Is that prosecutable. Maybe but I can’t think of a statute it violates.


Neither could the SC.


Is it an unconstitutuonal abuse of power and likely a high crime or misdemeanor, I suspect so since he’s using the power of his office to manipulate the election but not for his personal benefit. Under your logic there is no recourse for his actions. Can’t be prosecuted and if he loses his election he can’t be impeached and tried. If he could resign and their would be no political cost except at the next election. In or her words the ability to remove from office and preclude further office would have no meaning at all. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So what you are saying is, you would be upset if your side lost in an impeachment vote and couldn't get the conviction you want in a civilian trial. That's the way it goes sometimes like the first impeachment. Impeachment does not guarantee a political punishment but he could be impeached and you are correct that if it wasn't a federal crime, then he does escape punishment. Big deal. You had your shot at impeachment and lost.


It's like complaining about double jeopardy. Is it "fair" that after losing in court with an acquittal, you come up with indisputable proof of guilt but can't go to trial again? Shit happens, it doesn't always work but it is the system we have and if a President gets away with something not a federal crime but something less than 67 Senators find upsetting, so be it.

As I said, the proof lies with the accuser and no proof has been offerred that would change votes in any state. Vote drops in the middle of the night? Give me a break. Show me the proof.

There was never a forum for evidence to be presented, the “standing” excuse was used to avoid it. Frankly, with the death and destruction spread by democrats all summer, it’s likely that judges and politicians were frightened to death. Last thing I’d want as a judge is getting doxed and having the blm/antifa (aka the democrat Brownshirt death squads) burn my house to the ground.

There’s plenty of analysis out there showing things happening that are simply not believable, you just need the intellectual honesty to listen/watch them with an open mind.

Today, the trial began and once again Congressman Raskin was eloquent but IMHO, not persuasive.


Then the clown Swalwell took to the podium and I had heard enough.



Raskin's biggest fault IMHO, was trying to convince us that if one uses the word "fight", as in Trump suggesting his supporters "fight like hell", that translates to a call for violence. Problem is, if you check Raskins's website ( we are told ) you find a quote saying that he will continue to "fight" for Progressive ideas. Was he suggesting that his people riot to gain those ideas? I doubt it and while it is possible that is indeed what Trump had in mind, there is "reasonable doubt" and reasonable doubt caries the day.


I was thinking that if they did get down to calling witnesses and it were possible to call Congressmen and woman, I would find every example I could of a Congress person using the word fight, put them on the witness stand and let them deny they were calling for vilence when they used the word fight.


We already went through this crap about political speech back when Sara Palin used a bullseye when taking about "taking aim at her opponent". Was she saying she wanted to shoot the opponent or asking a supporter to shoot her opponent? She was not. Reasonable doubt.



Was the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot the Republican at a softball game game doing so because Sanders asked his people to "fight" for his ideas?


This trial is about "political speech", plan and simple and if we are going to put Trump on trial for political speech that some idiots take as orders, then we will have to put every Democrat that ever used the word fight to assume they meant violence. The people that cause the violence, are the only people guilty of a crime, period.



Then I would but Chuck Shumer on the stand and ask what he meant when he said 2 SC justices would "pay the price" if they vote against Roe.



Did you meant violence Sen. Shumer? No, of course not.


This trial is about Constitutionality of trying a private citizen in the Senate, a battle lost and a trial of free political speech and on both counts, Trump wins. Live with it.

My guess is that no good law firm and staffers would touch this case. Potential firms were threatened physically and with disbarment. The swamp would not hire them again.. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Interesting theory...any evidence whatsoever to support it?

There was never a forum for evidence to be presented, the “standing” excuse was used to avoid it. Frankly, with the death and destruction spread by democrats all summer, it’s likely that judges and politicians were frightened to death. Last thing I’d want as a judge is getting doxed and having the blm/antifa (aka the democrat Brownshirt death squads) burn my house to the ground.

There’s plenty of analysis out there showing things happening that are simply not believable, you just need the intellectual honesty to listen/watch them with an open mind. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

While I agree in general with what you said, I think there were a few trials where the judge did look at what was presented and decided that coming into court with 100 examples of fraud in an election decided by 80,000 votes was not worth having. In all most all cases, I believe, I could be wrong, judges looked at some evidence and decided there wasn't enough to overturn the vote.


That is not to say there wasn't evidence of dead people voting and more absentee ballots coming back that were never sent out but that in not one case did the evidence prove that the number for Biden could be whittled down to a win for Trump.


I believe there was fraud but at no time did Trump's lawyers go into court with the proof they needed to over turn even one state election.


Now was that because the evidence was well hidden or that Democrats prevented access to such evidence? I do not know but what I am sure of is that Trump's attorneys failed to make the case for "massive voter fraud" that would have altered the election in Trump's favor.


Maybe they cheated maybe they didn't but under our judicial system, you either have the evidence or you don't and saying "they wouldn't allow me to get the evidence I needed" will never be sufficient without the proof that they did so.


I said from day one that I supported Trump's right to challenge every single state if he wanted to and he tried 62 times, losing 61 cases. When the SC failed to review for reasons I didn't like, I was done with the election. There was no where else to go and I had to accept, reluctantly, that the contest was over and Trump continuing to say he won and he had proof, was a lie. It may have existed somewhere, but he didn't have it. End of story.


It was pointed out today that a better case for the prosecution, rather than Trump incited the violence which is loaded with reasonable doubt IMHO, there is no doubt what soever that after seeing the first rioters breaking in, he could have told them to stop, he didn't. So while he might reasonably argue he didn't tell them to start the riot, he didn't in a timely manner, tell them to stop and I have to find fault in that.


I still think it is un-Constitutional to try a private citizen and I would love to see the DOJ try and prosecute Trump on a federal charge of inciting an insurrection and see how the courts would handle it.


I also believe that Trump might very well lose a court fight in Georgia of trying to interfere in a federal election. I think they have all the evidence they need to find him guilty of that charge.


You guys might just get your pound of flesh one way or the other.

The entire premise of ‘voting on the constitutionality’ is ridiculous. These people are supposed to be lawmakers and they couldn’t pass 3rd grade civics.

@HF
Great analysis and, once again, right on the money. This shitshow is nothing more than an attempt at making opposing views illegal, with a dash of ‘don’t even attempt running for office if you’re not part of the elite Washington class or you’ll be destroyed’ thrown in for flavor.

I said from day one that I supported Trump's right to challenge every single state if he wanted to and he tried 62 times, losing 61 cases. When the SC failed to review for reasons I didn't like, I was done with the election. There was no where else to go and I had to accept, reluctantly, that the contest was over and Trump continuing to say he won and he had proof, was a lie. It may have existed somewhere, but he didn't have it. End of story. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So what you are saying is, you would be upset if your side lost in an impeachment vote and couldn't get the conviction you want in a civilian trial. That's the way it goes sometimes like the first impeachment. Impeachment does not guarantee a political punishment but he could be impeached and you are correct that if it wasn't a federal crime, then he does escape punishment. Big deal. You had your shot at impeachment and lost.


It's like complaining about double jeopardy. Is it "fair" that after losing in court with an acquittal, you come up with indisputable proof of guilt but can't go to trial again? Shit happens, it doesn't always work but it is the system we have and if a President gets away with something not a federal crime but something less than 67 Senators find upsetting, so be it.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I’m pretty sure I neither said nor implied any such thing.

I differentiate between political processes and criminal court processes. Similarly to a person being indicted and tried at the state and federal level for the same crime. Double jeopardy doesn’t apply there.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Amen!!! I keep asking for proof that fraud was committed and OEB and others simply cite the standard line -- fraud was committed but covered up.

So again I ask -- what specific acts of voter fraud were committed during the 2020 election that either took votes from Trump or gave votes to Biden? Specific acts backed up by evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

I still believe the election was stolen! Trump did the right thing by fighting it! So how is he responsible?
Hes not!
He did not ask for this to happen or attend the protest.
Its only biased political grand standing! Originally Posted by winn dixie

Give me one substantiated incident of voter fraud in the election.

The voter fraud crew = the flat earthers

none so blind - as refuse to see the intellectual bankruptcy of teh DPST/ccp ideology.



And when they come for You - for AOC's re-education camps -

There will be no one to speak for you.


we will not go quietly!!
So =-1b1- referred me for prosecution to teh FBI/ NSA yet???

Amen!!! I keep asking for proof that fraud was committed and OEB and others simply cite the standard line -- fraud was committed but covered up.

So again I ask -- what specific acts of voter fraud were committed during the 2020 election that either took votes from Trump or gave votes to Biden? Specific acts backed up by evidence that would hold up in a court of law. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I tied explaining this. You either didn't read my explanation or chose to ignore it.


Trump's lawyers went into court with say 100 cases of provable fraud. The judge looked at the vote tally and said that Trump had lost by let's say 80,000 votes and said "what would be the pointing of hearing 100 fraud cases ( a number I picked out of the air, could have been 1,000 ) if it didn't effect/ over turn the election results? That could have been the case in every trial but we never got to hear those cases of fraud because they wouldn't have made a difference. That doesn't mean that Trump's lawyers failed to show any fraud, they didn't get the chance to and from a legal point of view, that was the way it work's.


There was fraud, it was just not the massive fraud that Guiliani and Powell said they had no different than Schiff telling us he had evidence of a Trump/ Russia collusion which he never had either.


Did you happen to see this story SR?


https://stream.org/time-magazine-art...2020-election/


Time Magazine Article Celebrates ‘Conspiracy’ to Fix 2020 Election

They call it "fortifying" the election.



What’s the difference between an election being fixed and an election being “fortified”? Who’s telling the tale, that’s all.
Donald Trump was defeated in the November election by a “conspiracy” of elites. Namely – and these are not my words:

a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

I didn’t write that. Liberal journalist Molly Ball did, in a remarkable — if frightening — Time magazine celebration of the massive forces that joined together to push Trump out of the White House.
The article is titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign to Save the 2020 Election.” It is a must-read.
But let me summarize: A group of powerful elites conspired to defeat Donald Trump because Donald Trump was saying powerful elites were conspiring to defeat him.
Yup.
Time lays out in detail the efforts our elites undertook, spinning it all as a plan to “save democracy” from Trump. (Good luck finding any factual evidence in that article of Trump’s threatening democracy. Best they’ve got is him talking smack about “institutions” that were, in fact, working against his administration in ways legal and illegal.)
The plan’s “Architect,” according to Ball, was Mike Podhorzer, a former senior advisor to the president of the AFL-CIO labor union federation.
In Ball’s words, “Sometime in the fall of 2019, Mike Podhorzer became convinced the election was headed for disaster — and determined to protect it.”
Let’s stop right there. Ball spins the “disaster” as Trump’s claim that the only way he’d lose would be if the election were stolen. Thus heroes of democracy had to step in to “protect” the election from whatever Trump was going to do to fraudulently secure his election.
Except that Ball ignores a painful reality: In the fall of 2019 the election was headed for disaster … for Democrats. Donald Trump was a practical shoo-in for a huge re-election. The economy was thundering, our enemies were weakening, salaries were rising, employment and opportunity, particularly for lower income and people of color was skyrocketing, strong new trade deals were being signed, the border was being secured, drug costs were going down, troops were coming home, Middle East peace deals were being signed. The list of administration wins was growing by the day.


Meanwhile, the Democratic primary race lay in shambles. The bumbling battalion of candidates kept promising free goodies to illegal immigrants, and tripping over themselves to prove who could sound the most radical. The leading candidate? Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who the DNC knew would lead to election disaster. The Chosen One, Kamala Harris, was proving to be a dreadful, thoroughly unlikable candidate. The “moderate” candidate, Joe Biden, could not last a single appearance or debate without some terrible gaffe, whopper or unhinged response, or having his thoughts completely derail.
The party was desperate for a savior who could beat Trump. Remember the talk of Oprah, then Michelle Obama? Even Michael Bloomberg was a flavor for a month. Nothing was working.
The Dems were in deep trouble. So sure, Podhorzer, Democrats, Media, Big Tech, Never Trumper Republicans, and cheap labor/open border types like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were right. They were looking disaster straight down the gullet. Disaster for them, that is: A Trump second term.
So they got to work. They teamed. They plotted. They conspired. “Conspiracy” is Time magazine’s word. Not mine.
Their effort was all encompassing, as Ball writes:

Their work touched every aspect of the election.
They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding.
They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.
They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.
They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction.
After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.

Understand what you just read. It is a confession … and a confirmation of what Trump and his allies have been saying.
Let’s break it down, shall we?
“They got states to change voting systems and laws …”

This includes engineering end-runs around state legislatures to create new election laws and procedures, ignoring state and U.S. constitutions to do it. It was all designed to loosen voter verification. To make ballot harvesting easier. To allow fraudulent and improper votes into the tally.
This includes signing off on “voting systems” that were notoriously easy to hack and manipulate. (Take Georgia, where just days before the election, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported: “In high-stakes election, Georgia voting system open to cyberattack.”)
“… And helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private financing.”

Dinesh D’Souza went to prison for giving a friend $20,000 for her campaign. Mark Zuckerberg dropped $350 million on progressive activists to jury-rig the vote gathering and tallying predominantly in heavily Democratic areas.
You want to see an example of what this led to? On Friday, Gateway Pundit released surveillance video from Detroit’s TCF Center, one of the mega-centers set up to tally votes. Watch a van registered to the city of Detroit pull up at 3:23 am and unload tens of thousands of ballots. An hour later, it returns to unload even more ballots. No ballots arriving after 8 pm were supposed to be counted. Michigan, of course, is where Biden had one of his overnight massive vote spikes.
The story was released on Friday. Twitter permanently suspended Gateway Pundit on Sunday. The conspiracy rolls on.
“They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits …”

Translation: Lawsuits that pushed for voter ID or for state voter registration rolls to be cleared of dead people, people who’d moved out of state, or otherwise ineligible voters. In other words, they blocked lawsuits that would protect the sacred American principle of one legal voter, one legal vote.
“… And recruited armies of poll workers …”

Translation: We paid democratic loyalists to man the forts. Remember the supposedly non-partisan “election workers” who cheered whenever a GOP observer got tossed from the tally center? Remember the boards going up to block Republican observers from watching?
“… And got millions to vote by mail for the first time.”

Even those who were dead, or otherwise ineligible. See Wisconsin, where nearly 300,000 voted while “indefinitely confined.” Democratic officials told voters in Democratic heavy areas to use COVID to claim that status, which allows voting without ID. See the states flooded with “universal” ballots sent to those dirty registration lists, and ballots that were rejected at only one-thirtieth the rate they had been in earlier elections.
“They … pressured social media companies to take a harder line …”

Translation: They got their friends in Big Tech to censor stories that violated their narrative. The prime example is the New York Post’s revelations about Hunter Biden’s laptop. And hence the fact that candidate Joe Biden had blatantly lied about his direct role in the Biden Family Businesses, including their deals with Communist China. Remember how John Brennan, James Clapper and other Deep State anti-Trump brokers dropped a letter saying the story was Russian disinformation?
A survey showed that 4.6% of Biden voters would not have voted for him had they known the revelations in the NY Post stories. That alone virtually eliminates his margin of “victory.”
Besides that, what “disinformation” could they be talking about? Trump saying that Big Tech was working to suppress conservative voices?
All told, these conspirators decided what the American voter could and could not hear. Can you get more fascist? Any more undemocratic?
“They … helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks …”

Meanwhile, why would the vote count unfold over days or weeks? The swing states where they didn’t fiddle with election laws and flood the states with dubious ballots had no problem getting their counts done election night … as has been done throughout most of our history. Trump won those easily.
Chaos was the inevitable and desired result of the conspiracy. Trump warned it would happen. So what do you do? You create a narrative that no matter what, Biden was going to win. Nancy Pelosi said it, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General said it. The narrative was created before a single vote had been counted that Donald Trump would lose and that you should ignore any claims otherwise. No matter how massive his election night lead, no matter what irregularities screamed fraud, no matter what honest American citizens said they saw.
Again, what’s the “conspiracy theory” Trump was talking about? The exact conspiracy that Time magazine lays out!
“… They monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”

Translation: Blocking by all means necessary any effort to seriously investigate the election irregularities. This includes further information suppression, de-platforming, witness intimidation, threatening legislators, threatening lawyers, pressuring CEOs to pressure Trump to concede and make questioning the results a firing offense. (Now it’s called “sedition.”) And don’t forget Biden’s “greatest voter fraud team ever assembled.”
They Destroyed Democracy in Order to Save it

Read the full Time article. Feel the conspirators’ sanctimonious pride at manipulating the machinery of the 2020 election, suppressing relevant information, and grabbing the decision from the hands of the American voter.
Spot the hypocrisy at the center of their story: They say that their effort began because of Trump’s claim the only way he would lose is if the election were stolen. They then declared the only way Trump could win is if he stole it.
Notice how little mention they make of Joe Biden. He wasn’t needed. He could stay in the basement.
The Fix Was In

In autumn 2019, when the election looked hopeless for Democrats, forces aligned against Trump decided they were going to pull out all the stops and conspire together to defeat him at all costs.
COVID came along and made the election fix even easier. And in a move that can only be called Orwellian, they call it “fortifying” the election.
The amazing thing? Despite their massive, year-long multi-thronged assault, it still took trucks pulling up in the middle of the night to dump hundreds of thousands of ballots into the Zuckerberg-funded and staffed election tabulation centers to defeat Trump. On Election Day, the American people showed up and blew past their projections.
You want to know why some 80% of Americans feel the nation is going in the wrong direction? The unshakable sense of something being off, odd … wrong? That Biden doesn’t belong in the White House?
The Time magazine confession proves the American people are not crazy.
The conspirators’ admit — boast, in fact — that they gamed the election and stopped Trump from showing otherwise.
These elite did not “save” democracy. They savaged it. The American people felt it. Now, thanks to Time magazine, the American people know it.
The Left will paint all that as just doing a better job than Republicans did. It is up to you to discern if any of that stuff was fraudulent or just good campaign strategy.

Stolen Election. We will not forget! 2022 will be a reckoning!

HF - thank You for a good read
and - surprisingly - out of a DPST/ccp slanted publication.

i wonder - is Time trying to wash its' hands of teh voter fraud - like Pontius Pilate???
Or, is it just part of teh general 'turn on each other ' DPST/ccp degeneration already occurring.?


Not One DPST/ccp mnion will bother to read - it is outside their razor thin narrative of permitted ideas.

the article is forbidden by their 'woke' cancel culture
and any who dare transgress the marching orders of their nomenklatura - risk exile and death in AOC's re-education camps!