Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [102 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [13 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [105 views]


9 Surprising Findings From Joe Biden's Physical
Medical by HatetheSwamp     February 29, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [17 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [89 views]


Mitch McConnell to step down from GOP leadership position in the
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 9:42 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [47 views]


"Where's Hunter?" He is in the capitol building kicking Republican ass!
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (14 comments) [124 views]


What should we make of the Michigan primary results?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 9:42 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [28 views]


Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (24 comments) [283 views]


The Doddering Old Fool's two serious problems coming out of Michigan
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 6:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [29 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.
Could Trump's Insurrectionist Activities Bar Him From Ever Being President Again?
By Ponderer
August 24, 2023 8:38 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


How states can keep Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024

Aug. 21 (UPI) -- After three indictments of former President Donald Trump, the fourth one in Georgia came not as a surprise but as a powerful exposition of the scope of his efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election.

New conservative legal scholarship spells out how and why those actions -- which were observed by the public over many months -- disqualify Trump from serving in the presidency ever again. And our read of the Georgia indictment, as longtime lawyers ourselves, shows why and how that disqualification can be put into effect.

The key to all of this is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "No person shall ... hold any office, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Trump took that oath at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.

Trump's Georgia indictment and his federal indictment in Washington cite largely public information -- and some newly unearthed material -- to spell out exactly how he engaged in efforts to rebel against the Constitution, and sought and gave aid and comfort to others who also did so.

Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, conservatives themselves and members of the conservative Federalist Society, have recently published a paper declaring that under the 14th Amendment, Trump's actions render him ineligible to hold office.

We believe the Georgia indictment provides even more detail than the earlier federal one about how Trump's actions have disqualified him from office and shows a way to keep him off the ballot in 2024.

Disqualification is automatic

Trump's supporters might argue that disqualifying him would be unfair without a trial and conviction on the Jan. 6 indictment, and perhaps the Georgia charges.

But Baude and Paulsen, using originalist interpretation -- the interpretive theory of choice of the powerful Federalist Society and Trump's conservative court appointees, which gives full meaning to the actual, original text of the Constitution -- demonstrate that no legal proceeding is required. They say disqualification is automatic, or what's known in the legal world as "self-executing."

Recent public comments from liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe and conservative jurist and former federal judge Michael Luttig -- who has characterized the events before, during and since Jan. 6 as Trump's "declared war on American democracy" -- suggest an emerging bipartisan consensus supporting Baude and Paulsen.

Backed by history

This is not a theoretical bit of technical law. This provision of the 14th Amendment was, in fact, extensively used after the Civil War to keep former Confederate leaders from serving in the federal government, without being tried or convicted of any crime.

Few former Confederates were charged with crimes associated with secession, rebellion and open war against the United States. And most were pardoned by sweeping orders issued by President Andrew Johnson.

But even though they had no relevant convictions, former Confederates were in fact barred from office in the United States.


Cited and related links:

  1. yahoo.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Could Trump's Insurrectionist Activities Bar Him From Ever Being President Again?":

  1. by Ponderer on August 24, 2023 8:46 am

    I'm starting to hear quite a bit of buzz growing in several states that are mulling this over. I heard this morning that Gavin Newsome is trying to get something through the state assembly to have him removed from any future ballots.

    I mean, when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. The part of the 14th Amendment that speaks of this was desperately needed after the Civil War. I mean, you don't want people getting into the government who actually fought against the government and tried to destroy it. The comparison to Trump is rather stark and spot on. What he did in organizing and facilitating everything that happened on 1/6 certainly qualifies for instant disqualification to any other elected office in the country under this amendment. Kind of a no-brainer.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on August 24, 2023 10:51 am

    This 14th Amendment stuff is old news. And, I adore how your hateful derangement leads to such a puuuuure hope, po. If Trump's the GOP nominee, excluding him from the ballot would have to be approved by the Supreme Court but, po, if the thought gives you sweet dreams, think away.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on August 24, 2023 10:52 am
    The problem is that the secretaries of state who might exclude Trump from the ballot are in very blue statesólike California. That makes Trump a martyr in the other states.


  4. by Ponderer on August 24, 2023 12:46 pm

    "That makes Trump a martyr in the other states." -Curt

    You mean the pro-insurrectionist, pro-felon states? Yeah, you're probably right.


  5. by Curt_Anderson on August 24, 2023 12:58 pm
    Ponderer,
    Don't you miss the days when presidents and presidential candidates were expected to be beyond reproach?

    The revelation of candidate's past misdemeanor could end their presidential campaign. Nobody with a felony conviction or under indictment of felony would even consider running for office.

    Gary Hart's campaign ended because he was on a boat with a woman who was not his wife. Before Reagan, it used to be that being divorced was considered a disqualification for office.



  6. by HatetheSwamp on August 24, 2023 1:08 pm

    Don't you miss the days when presidents and presidential candidates were expected to be beyond reproach?

    po's not that old.


  7. by oldedude on August 24, 2023 1:22 pm
    po #1- I'm starting to hear quite a bit of buzz growing in several states that are mulling this over. I heard this morning that Gavin Newsome is trying to get something through the state assembly to have him removed from any future ballots.

    po- if he's not convicted (which I'm going to "assume" for now, they don't have a recourse. The requirements are set by federal laws, so those candidates have to fall under the federal law, and the states' can't add limitations to that. It would be like a state saying they have to be White, or Christian. or on the other side, could not be black, gay, Muslim, etcetcetc.

    Of course, if he is convicted, then that's a whole different thing and my argument is void.
    overlawyered.com


  8. by Indy! on August 24, 2023 1:30 pm

    You beat me to it, peebs.

    I don't think divorce is a reason to exclude someone. So far as the "Federalists" ever standing up to Trump? The notion is laughable. They've gone against their own weak ass fantasy of originalism every time it helped the Republican party or their corporate masters. The only thing that might come from them is a good laugh watching them twist themselves into Constitutional pretzels trying to save Trump's campaign. And the Ds (as usual) don't have the balls to exclude Trump except in places it won't make a lick of difference (as Curt noted).

    Meanwhile, we're starting to see the Biden campaign heating up. Joe is making a point of getting his platform out there early...



  9. by Ponderer on August 24, 2023 5:09 pm

    "Ponderer,
    Don't you miss the days when presidents and presidential candidates were expected to be beyond reproach?"
    -Curt

    Yeah no kidding, Curt. I heard today how during the Bush v. Gore campaign the Republicans were all freaked out because it became known that Bush had a DUI when he was younger. They were terrified that it was going to be the end of his campaign as far as Republican voters were concerned.

    Nowadays, ninety one felony indictments isn't even enough for a GOP voter to give a negative comment about this crook to a pollster. Couldn't be less of an issue for them. A lot of them anyway.



  10. by oldedude on August 25, 2023 6:41 am
    Or murdering a woman carrying your child and leaving her in a frozen river. No effect on the political chances...


  11. by Ponderer on August 25, 2023 9:21 am

    1969???

    You seriously have to go back that far to find something that you think is equitable to Trump's crimes (not that you succeeded or anything close to it)? Yeah, that was a terrible thing that happened and he should have been held to account more for it.

    But od, Trump was literally trying to murder the Constitutional democracy this country was born as and has been for well over two centuries. He's currently trying to murder our justice system. Not that you MAGA Hats give a flyingfuck.



  12. by oldedude on August 25, 2023 9:55 am
    I'm not near the alarmist and over- reactor you are. I'm open to him being tried and found guilty. Or not. It doesn't matter to me. I've said this all along. This episode only affects my vote, which hasn't been decided yet. I find it an interesting piece of history. Otherwise, what does it to me or for me personally? Nothing.

    trumpster doesn't live in my brain 24/7 and him going (or not) to jail/prison has no power to set me off. He doesn't live in my dreams and has no power over me.

    Biden has more affect because of the high prices and being the wokster he is. That's tangible. trumpster isn't.


  13. by Indy! on August 25, 2023 11:30 am

    Horrible example, OD. Chappaquidick killed Kennedy's presidential aspirations. There is also good reason to believe he wasn't even in the car when it went in the drink.


  14. by Ponderer on August 25, 2023 12:53 pm

    "I'm open to him being tried and found guilty." -olde dude

    Ditto.

    "Or not." -olde dude

    Ditto.


    I am open to whatever verdict any jury finds. I have no fears about a fair and impartial jury of his peers reaching the just and correct verdict. I have faith in our system of justice as designed and I think that the jury system is a very fair way to go.

    I suppose this is something we share, od. I am far more into the entertainment value of Trump's Karma playing out than you are, granted. But on the core belief in our justice system, I think we agree.



    P.S.- I actually have a jury summons with my name on it on the dining table as we speak. I have responded to them probably about 80% of the times that I got them over my life. Never been chosen to be on one. We'll see if I finally get to be on a jury this time. I mean hey, I got plenty of time on my hands.


  15. by Ponderer on August 25, 2023 12:58 pm

    I got a jury summons a few months ago but this one was for federal court. I filled everything out and was actually looking forward to it. But on the date I was told to call, I got a message that they weren't even having court that week. I imagine my name and eligibility was passed into my county's court system though. Hence this one I got.


  16. by Indy! on August 25, 2023 4:57 pm

    The system was rigged here for years so only registered voters were called for jury duty. I was called every 2 years like clockwork for about 20 years (although I never once made it onto a jury). Then they claimed they were switching the system to people with driver's licenses to increase the pool size - but I kept getting called on a regular 2 year basis (which is the soonest you can serve again). So finally I pointed this out to the desk officer and she said straight up the state was lying and they were still using the registered voters database. That's when I said fuck it and started giving every excuse in the book to get out of serving.

    The last time they called me I made it all the way to the jury box in court where the lawyers interview you one last time and decide if they want you on the jury. If it was an interesting murder trial or something like that I might have been interested enough to try and get on the jury - but it was a small time gas station robbery. So I threw every excuse/reason I could think of to dissuade them from picking me until both sides just ignored me altogether. When they let us take a smoke break while the lawyers went thru the final decision process, some black chick in her 20s comes up to me and says "They aint never picking you. You're crazy" and laughed. Not only did they not pick me - they havenít called me since. That was about 15 years ago.


  17. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 3:49 am

    Tulsi:

    "A death rattle of any democracy is when a sitting president uses the state security apparatus to go after political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself or his family. Biden is doing that now. His actions make it clear he believes himself to be not the enforcer of the rule of law but the exception to it."

    Tulsi Da Bomb!


  18. by Ponderer on August 26, 2023 6:58 am

    "A death rattle of any democracy is when a sitting president uses the state security apparatus to go after political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself or his family." -Tulsi Gabbard (supposedly)


    Isn't it odd that she never made a peep the whole time that Donald Trump was blatantly using the state security apparatus to go after his political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself and his family with quite enormous volumes of evidence all over the place... I mean people were tripping over all the evidence of Trump doing that with "His" attorney general and even the IRS.

    And yet here she is accusing Biden of doing exactly what Trump did, without the tiniest shred of anything even vaguely resembling evidence to back up such an accusation. Not a molecule of evidence whatsoever. None. Zero. Nada.

    Very curious indeed.


    She's much like you, Bill. She also doesn't need any evidence to throw lies around about her foes with reckless abandon... while completely and totally ignoring every felonious action Trump ever committed as president before hers and your very eyes and ears.

    It's called projection, Bill. That is when a person blames others for doing what they themselves or the people they are protecting and defending are doing themselves. And you and all of the other MAGA Republicans excel at it. (I guess we need to refer to Tulsi as a... MAGA Independent...?)

    It's sad to see that Tulsi has gotten as good at it as every MAGA Republican like you has been. And she hasn't even had the decades of experience at it. She'll make an excellent MAGA Republican when she eventually decides it's time for her final and inevitable transition.


    It's actually sickening how she and you seem to believe that just because Trump was enough of an immoral, megalomaniacal, pathological criminal to go after political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself or his family as president, that it therefore allows you two to accuse any president you want to of the same crimes with no evidence at all whatsoever.



  19. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 7:43 am

    po,

    Do you woke, white electric limousine lovin libs have any defense for "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" besides...

    ..."OH YEAH! WELL, TRUMP IS WORSE!!!!!?"

    Hmmmm?


  20. by Ponderer on August 26, 2023 8:40 am

    Yeah. Sure I do, Bill...

    How about the fact that there isn't anyfucking evidence of Biden doing anything illegal...?

    I'm one of those old fashioned kinda Americans who thinks there should be some kind of evidence of guilt before they "LOCK HIM UP!!!". Kind of a stickler for that I'm afraid.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 9:14 am

    po,

    "That feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" has been caught, many times, lying about his awareness of Hunterís business associates. It's what legal beagles call consciousness of guilt.

    But, that's far from the point. If the Doddering Old Fool's innocent, then make the case for that. Trumpís evil has nuthin to do with it.


  22. by Curt_Anderson on August 26, 2023 9:48 am
    ďIf [Biden is] innocent, then make the case for that. Trumpís evil has nuthin to do with it.Ē. -HtS

    Did you graduate from the Joseph Stalin School of Justice? In America prosecutors need to make the case for the defendantsí guilt. People donít need to prove their innocence.

    Youíll just have to wait for Jim Jordan to make a case.


  23. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 9:57 am

    All pb's ever suggested, Curt, is that there's ample reason to investigate the DODDERING OLD FOOL. Baha keehee baha!


  24. by Curt_Anderson on August 26, 2023 10:04 am
    House Republicans can investigate almost whatever they want, no matter how unfounded or stupid. For example, Jim Jordan is now investigating DA Fani Willis to determine if she discussed cases with special counsel Jack Smith or the DOJ. Jim Jordan is apparently unaware that local law-enforcement and prosecutors often compares notes and discusses crimes with their federal counterparts.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 10:13 am

    Just the other day, my Legal Goober #1, Alan Dershowitz, member of pb's Legal Advisory Council, noted that Jordan's proposed investigation of Ms Willis is justified and appropriate...and. certainly, constitutional.


  26. by HatetheSwamp on August 26, 2023 3:22 pm

    Jonathan Turley:

    "I have discussed a potential impeachment of the president with Republican House members and have encouraged them not to repeat the abuses of House Democrats. Garland, however, has effectively forced their hands on the need for an impeachment inquiry."
    twitter.com


  27. by oldedude on August 26, 2023 3:30 pm
    For example, Jim Jordan is now investigating DA Fani Willis to determine if she discussed cases with special counsel Jack Smith or the DOJ. Jim Jordan is apparently unaware that local law-enforcement and prosecutors often compares notes and discusses crimes with their federal counterparts.

    So there are a couple of questions.
    Congress cannot rely on other investigations without having their own evidence. (or didn't you know that?) SO Jordon, by law must subpoena those documents to actually find out what's in them. Right now, DOJ is about 20 years behind subpoenas to congress. Whatta ya think? If people would hand over their shit, maybe we could do something in this nation. We're still waiting for subpoenas from pre 2016 that have never been resolved from DOJ(inclusive) (mainly), but also Treasury, etcetcetc.


  28. by Donna on August 26, 2023 4:36 pm

    "If the Doddering Old Fool's innocent, then make the case for that." -Hate

    Okay. I base my case that Biden is innocent of doing anything illegal on the fact that there is no evidence that Biden ever did anything illegal. A very large amount of no evidence. In fact, the complete and total lack of evidence is immense. And a small part of that huge lack of evidence you and od have presented here yourselves as well.


  29. by Ponderer on August 26, 2023 4:37 pm

    ^^^ Me ^^^


  30. by Indy! on August 26, 2023 7:32 pm

    Tulsi never spoke out against Trump? At least according to MSNBC she never did.


    "Rep. Tulsi Gabbard calls for President Trump's censure"

    Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is calling for President Donald Trump's censure on the eve a full House vote Wednesday on the articles of impeachment.

    The resolution, which Gabbard planned to introduce late Tuesday, suggests that the president put personal political gain over national interest.

    Blah, blah, blah...


    This is why you can't get all your info from one corporate "news" source.



    abcnews.go.com


  31. by Ponderer on August 26, 2023 11:02 pm

    "Isn't it odd that she never made a peep the whole time that Donald Trump was blatantly using the state security apparatus to go after his political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself and his family with quite enormous volumes of evidence all over the place..." -Indy!

    ""Rep. Tulsi Gabbard calls for President Trump's censure.

    Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is calling for President Donald Trump's censure on the eve a full House vote Wednesday on the articles of impeachment.

    The resolution, which Gabbard planned to introduce late Tuesday, suggests that the president put personal political gain over national interest."
    "



    I stand corrected. She did make a peep. An adorable wee peep.


  32. by HatetheSwamp on August 27, 2023 4:13 am

    But, po, there is evidence of Biden doing something illegal. There's video and documentary evidence.

    Jonathan Turley...i.e., pb's Legal Goober #2, is saying that the DOJ has now forced the House into the position that an Impeachment Inquiry has become necessary. FYI, po, Turley ain't a GOP and he certainly ain't a MAGA. But, he understands the Constitution...maybe even as well as you do. Baha baha baha!

    Understand, though...on our side...where the Bill of Rights still applies to all citizens, an investigation ain't a conviction...

    ...heck! A charge, or indictment, ain't a conviction.

    Congress has the constitutional OBLIGATION to exercise oversight over the Executive and Judicial Branches. Turley believes that it's now appropriate for Congress to take its oversight of our President to a more advanced level.

    It gotten that bad.


  33. by HatetheSwamp on August 27, 2023 6:19 am

    "While I disagreed with Trumpís claims, many campaigns have sought such investigations or launched challenges based on flimsy evidence. I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. They did not result in criminal charges."

    Bingo!


  34. by Ponderer on August 27, 2023 7:05 am

    "While I disagreed with Trumpís claims, many campaigns have sought such investigations or launched challenges based on flimsy evidence. I have covered such challenges for years as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and Fox. They did not result in criminal charges."

    I will bet dollars to donuts that there wasn't a single case that he ever covered before where anyone called state election officials and threatened them to find them votes that didn't exist. There are lots of legal ways to challenge and investigate election results. None of them involve threatening state election officials or criminally slandering innocent poll workers.

    Everyone keeps going on about the fact that all of this is so unprecedented. Well NoShit! We have never had a felonious career criminal like him for a president before. Trump's crimes while president are unprecedented. It's not our fault that he was simply the most criminal president we ever had by many factors.


    And did I ever say that I had anything against investigations? Investigate away! Knock yourselves out. It's all just for show anyway.

    But just remember, Bill: An investigation ain't a conviction.


  35. by HatetheSwamp on August 27, 2023 7:43 am

    I will bet dollars to donuts that there wasn't a single case that he ever covered before where anyone called state election officials and threatened them to find them votes that didn't exist. There are lots of legal ways to challenge and investigate election results. None of them involve threatening state election officials or criminally slandering innocent poll workers.

    Holy Cow, po. Biden did that!!!!!? Oy vey!!!!!

    But just remember, Bill: An investigation ain't a conviction.

    Preach it, sis!


  36. by Ponderer on August 27, 2023 8:32 am

    "Holy Cow, po. Biden did that!!!!!?" -Hate

    In a pig's fuckingeye he did, Bill. He didn't need to. He won the 2020 presidential election fair and square.


  37. by HatetheSwamp on August 27, 2023 11:48 am

    I was confused because Turley was commenting on the need to have an Impeachment Inquiry of Joe Biden, not Trump. So, just more whataboutism.

    Watch out. isle chafes at whataboutism... at least, when it goes t'other direction.


  38. by Indy! on August 27, 2023 8:58 pm

    Just one example, Pondy - there are hundreds more. But hey - I'd be the last one to wake you from your peaceful sleep.


  39. by HatetheSwamp on August 28, 2023 7:17 am

    pb's Legal Goober #2:

    "The new evidence that Hunter's partner Devin Archer met with then Secretary of State John Kerry is particularly concerning due to the date after Biden forcing the Ukrainians to fire Shokin."


    pb'll repeat what he's posted many times. I get thinking Trump is despicable. But, to suggest that Joe ain't a typical Swamp politician is absurd.

    Oh, and notice. There's "new" evidence. pb's been saying that Kevin McCarthy is trickle truthin. He's sitting on a mountain of evidence. He's slow walking the Biden scandal so that Joe's in boiling water during the election campaign.

    So far? pb's theory holds.

    foxnews.com
    jonathanturley.org


  40. by Donna on August 28, 2023 7:34 am

    Trump's general horribleness is what prevented him from winning the general election in 2020, and he'll lose even bigger in 2024. Polls are already indicating that.




  41. by Ponderer on August 28, 2023 7:36 am

    "Just one example, Pondy - there are hundreds more." -Indy!

    I'm not sure what that was in reference to.


  42. by HatetheSwamp on August 28, 2023 7:44 am

    Donna,

    That was certainly a factor.

    The polls I've seen so far have Trump and Biden, essentially, tied. If the GOP candidate ties the Dem in the popular vote, look for a GOP Electoral College victory of about 320 to 218.

    But, so much is unknown. The HouseGOPs'll be doing their Impeachment Drama well into 024...and there's nuthin Rachel nor Chuck You nor Joe hisself can do to stop it.


  43. by Donna on August 28, 2023 7:52 am

    The GOP nominee is in all likelihood going to be Trump who already lost by over 7 million votes on 2020 when the polling was showing a similarly tight race.


  44. by Ponderer on August 28, 2023 8:06 am

    "pb's been saying that Kevin McCarthy is trickle truthin. He's sitting on a mountain of evidence." -Hate

    Well, that's one possibility that you can focus on to pretend that there actually is something. If they have some killer evidence against the Bidens and they aren't presenting it while their Lord God King and Master has become a criminal defendant all over the place and is appearing in unflattering photo ops in police stations, I for one feel extremely uncertain of its existence.


    I don't know how many times I have to say this, but if I see some evidence, some truly actual evidence of a crime that either Biden has committed, I am open to adjusting my opinions of them. I am not like the MAGA Cult followers here who will never change their minds about their cult leader no matter how many just and deserving felony convictions he's buried under.

    You know, presenting Trump's crimes and presenting the evidence collected against him was a walk in the park for us. Could it be that the reason that you guys can't do anything like what we did is because there aren't any crimes that were actually committed in this instance?

    You've got a willing person here waiting to see the evidence you've got. And I'm getting kinda tired of all this lame ass, "Well this evidence suggests...", or "This implies that...", or "This means he must have..." amorphous malarkey that seems to be the only thing you've got and ever had. It shouldn't take hour long videos or pages and pages of some editorial opinions to simply specify and present a specific law and the evidence that it was broken, if such evidence exists.

    Look guys, I understand that you've got to try to make the best with what you have, but you really haven't shown anything here yet that is actual evidence of a crime having been committed. So any expectation that anyone is "holding back" the really good stuff at this point is likely wasted.


  45. by Curt_Anderson on August 28, 2023 9:01 am
    "...I see some evidence, some truly actual evidence of a crime that either Biden has committed..." --Ponderer

    I know which side you are on, but why is it relevant to how we vote or who we support for president if Hunter Biden is convicted of any crimes? If Joe is guilty of something that's a different issue.

    You don't hear Trump supporters holding the crimes of his children against Donald Trump even though he was involved.

    The Trump children were involved in various charity scams a few years ago. (You can look it up) Eric was pulling some shenanigans involving a supposed children's cancer charity. The Trump foundation was fined $2 million and the Trump children banned from running charities.

    Ivanka, her husband, Eric and Don junior have been involved in various shady foreign business deals worth billions. That's public knowledge. If Hunter had been involved in any deals like those of the Trump family that we know about, the House GOP would have impeached Joe Biden already.


  46. by Ponderer on August 28, 2023 9:28 am

    I'm just playing along with their stupid game, Curt. They think that Hunter doing something illegal is a big deal. But yeah, it means nothing if Joe had nothing to do with it and didn't do anything illegal.

    And you present good evidence to support the idea that it means nothing. These clowns couldn't care less about all the crimes that Trump's kinds were found guilty of. So therefore, nothing Hunter does amounts to a hill of beans either.

    Trump's kids have been right in there with the scamming from the very beginning. Some of their first crimes were being committed while their father's inauguration celebration was still going on for Pete's sake. And it all didn't matter a damn to our resident Trump cultists one little bit what else they illegally did throughout their father's entire administration.


  47. by HatetheSwamp on August 28, 2023 10:34 am

    Baha baha bahahahahahahahahahaha baha.

    You woke, white electric limousine lib lovers are sooooooooooo cute. You can groove on Rachel's lies all day long. If you want, watch, or read, a news source that doesn't feed the preferences and prejudices that you bring with you to every moment of your lives.

    Just know. McCarthy seems to be accumulating material appropriate for the impeachment of members of the Executive Branch of government...

    ...you can pretend this away to your heart's content. Please do.

    But, if you think that the Doddering Old Fool's not a typically corrupt SwampPolitician you're... bahahahahahahahahahaha!


  48. by Indy! on August 28, 2023 10:37 am
    Pondy...

    "Isn't it odd that she never made a peep the whole time that Donald Trump was blatantly using the state security apparatus to go after his political opponents and cover up lies and crimes committed by himself and his family with quite enormous volumes of evidence all over the place..." -Indy!

    ""Rep. Tulsi Gabbard calls for President Trump's censure.

    Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is calling for President Donald Trump's censure on the eve a full House vote Wednesday on the articles of impeachment.

    The resolution, which Gabbard planned to introduce late Tuesday, suggests that the president put personal political gain over national interest."
    "


    I stand corrected. She did make a peep. An adorable wee peep.



    Referring to this. 👆 Tulsi has spoken out against Trump on many occasions, but unlike the worthless democrats - she doesn't make it the ONLY thing worthy of comment or action in her life. You might be surprised to find out not everyone believes committing every waking moment to the orange idol like you and Rachel is a worthwhile life decision.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Could Trump's Insurrectionist Activities Bar Him From Ever Being President Again?"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page