Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

The CNN article you linked above references Webster's, various peoples' opinions, common usage an so on.  That is just politics.  The only thing that actually matters from the DOJ/defendant perspective are the legal definitions from Title 18:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

The only tangible difference I see between the two is that the jail time for seditious conspiracy is 20 years versus 10 years for insurrection. So, perhaps it's better that these MAGA-maniacs are charged with the former instead of the latter...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I have been waiting for several days now for one of you dumb as a box of rocks leftists to figure out what Greg and I already know.  

I guess it was giving you and the rest of your dumbass buddies on the left way too much credit, thinking you might figure out just why the Democrats are SO intent on calling it an Insurrection by Donald Trump.  

Apparently though James, you and the rest of the gaggle of idiots here on the left never figured out why your Jan 6th committee were So insistent on using the word "INSURRECTION". 

Let me educate the DB leftists here.

It is because of the 14th amendment in which clause 3 states directly this passage:  " No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, 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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

If they can prove Donald Trump engaged in an "INSURRECTION", which of course he did not, they believe that the Clause above could keep him from running for any office ever again.   


And that IS the distinction dumbass, which does in fact matter, legally.  

  

Not so fast:  "But a conviction or even imprisonment would not bar Trump from running for president. The Constitution sets the requirements for presidential candidates, and a clean criminal history is not one of them."
"Some have wondered if a convicted but still unsentenced Trump could be inaugurated and assume control of the Oval Office. While presumably that could occur, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on a sitting president is almost too bizarre to even contemplate and would certainly raise constitutional issues that the Supreme Court would ultimately resolve."
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/11/16/donald-trump-2024-campaign-legal-criminal-indictment-00067509
and:
"Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing” – that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states."
https://theconversation.com/even-if-jan-6-referrals-turn-into-criminal-charges-or-convictions-trump-will-still-be-able-to-run-in-2024-and-serve-as-president-if-elected-196851
So, your so-called "distinction", underlined and in bold print, isn't the conspiracy to prevent Trump from taking office that you and Greg think it is...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You really are just a Rock head aren't you.

I put right there for you to read:

It is what the Democrats THINK will prevent him from running for office again.  

Got it DB? 

"they believe that the Clause above could keep him from running for any office ever again". 

BS! Who is "they"?, and not "Democrats", obuse moron, but specifically who among Democrats has categorically stated that their intent is to make Trump ineligible for office via the insurrection reference in the constitution? Other than Republican Liz Cheney speaking generally in the Jan 6th committee wherein she doesn't think Trump should ever hold office again, obviously based collectively on the findings of the Jan 6th committee, who is else comprises "they believe" other than expressing an opinion that Trump shouldn't be in office again because of his overall alleged illicit actions. If anything, Trump being nominated again would likely insure a Democratic victory in 2024, so bring him on!

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You truly are just the dumbest of the dumb aren't you?

There is dumb, dumber, dumbest, and then we reach your level of idiocy.

I have been saying for how long now that Donald Trump hasn't broken any laws, and suddenly I'm on board am I with Liz Cheney and the Dems, that he IS guilty of a crime?

Buffoon isn't a strong enough word for you.

You asked  this above?

"but specifically who among Democrats has categorically stated that their intent is to make Trump ineligible for office via the insurrection reference in the constitution"?

Before I give you some facts and the answer, I just have to ask you this question: 

Do you enjoy making yourself look like the biggest fucking idiot on planet Earth in front of the entire world?  

LOL!

Here you go moron:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/12/16/democrats-pursue-broad-effort-to-bar-trump-from-the-presidency-under-14th-amendment/?sh=65888d1e743f

That is a list of 40 you f'in idiot.     

Oh obtuse moron note this from your citation:
"BIG NUMBER
51%. That’s the share of respondents in a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday who believe Trump should be disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment, after he called for “terminating” the Constitution in order to reverse his 2020 election loss." 
So, "They" means a lot of people and not some conspiracy among Democrats to deny Trump the ability to run for office, Furthermore, as we see from the link:
"Whether any efforts to keep Trump out of the White House through the 14th Amendment would actually succeed. It’s highly unlikely the bill introduced Thursday can make it through Congress, given Republicans are about to regain control of the House and Democrats would need 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. Any lawsuits over the issue would be up to the courts to decide, including potentially the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative tilt and thus may be unlikely to rule against Trump. No states have yet said they’re willing to go along with calls to disqualify Trump from state elections, and the DOJ is still investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, so it remains to be seen whether that will result in any charges."
"There’s still some debate over whether the 14th Amendment actually applies to the office of the presidency, which Trump could use to defend himself if he faces lawsuits calling for his disqualification. The amendment doesn’t specify that it includes the president, like it does with members of Congress or state legislatures, so critics have argued it doesn’t apply and the president can instead only be removed from office by being impeached."
So, knowing all this, which the Democrats in congress understand, the Democratic argument to keep Trump from remaining in office if re-elected is obviously more show than reality. So, the equally obvious point is there is no conspiracy to keep Trump out of office as you and Greg think...   

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hey DSOB, you made a claim saying that aside from Liz Cheney, the Leftist Dem politicians, whose collective asses you have your lips permanently attached to, wanted him to run and that they weren't pushing for having him removed via the 14th amendment.

So when I proved to you that they are because they're terrified of him running, now you change your tune like the leftist weasel you are?

Gee how surprising.  

Let's go over the main point we've established here. 

1.  You're quite possibly the dumbest person ever to pen a sentence on A-Mart.

2.  Refer to #1 above.   

And you claimed that you wouldn't vote for Trump again and I called BS on that, too. And NOW you're upset with righteous indignation because of some hypothetical and unlikely scenario wherein Trump is banned from office by some sort of plot by the Democrats. That's how utterly full of crap you are...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You immediately attacked them since they were the messenger and they proved factually correct.

Are you still denying that what they reported at the time was true?

Here's a straight fact.  They were correct in their reporting at the time, when you compared them to the National Enquirer.

It turns out that they were correct and you were proven wrong.  

And once again as always is that the only tactic you have is to attack the messenger as you do 100% of the time, when faced with facts that don't fit your narrative of claiming everything is a conspiracy theory, whenever the facts put your side of the political aisle in a bad light. 

You have proved that over and over again.  

That loser tactic is the method of a lightweight when he can't refute the facts put in front of him, and it is the tactic that you resort to virtually every single time. 

When faced with the facts that the left is using the 14th amendment to try and keep Donald Trump from running for President, you deny it outright even though they have introduced a Bill into Congress to do that very thing.
 

What exactly did the NYP article on Hunter Biden's laptop prove? As far as we know, it proves it's evidently his laptop and it has emails on it, some of which are his and others that reportedly are not. Beyond that, there is no smoking gun here of any sort. Maybe when Daryl Issa and Jim Jordan begin their BS investigation of it, they can call you as an expert witness and you can tell 'em all about it. 

"Outgoing Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) said people on the right seizing on conspiracy theories is giving Democrats a “tangible advantage” with the electorate."
"In an interview with Politico published Monday, Meijer said conspiracy theories were leading conservatives “to go down these rabbit holes and chase their own tails.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/3795887-outgoing-gop-rep-right-expending-energy-on-conspiracies-gives-democrats-tangible-advantage/
 Greg, Rich, keep those conspiracy theories coming...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Greg, Rich, keep those conspiracy theories coming...

What is that?   I don't recall promoting any conspiracy theory.

I can name 2 big ones that you promoted.

You promoted for 3 years or more that Donald Trump was Putin's spy.

You promoted and still promote that the Dossier was all real.  

Both of those are loony toons yet you still promote both.

So name the conspiracies you claim that I'm promoting.

Fail much?   

I didn't state Trump was Putin's spy. I stated Russia collaborated with the Trump campaign through its campaign manager in order to help Trump get elected in the 2016 election and that is a fact and not a conspiracy theory.
I didn't state the Steele Dossier was "all real"; only some of it is factual.
Your and Greg's statements that the Democrats and some Republicans are advocating an insurrection charge against Trump merely to keep in him out of office IS a conspiracy theory. I believe Greg thinks the 2020 election was either stolen or that Biden didn't get all of the votes that he did and either thought is part of the same inane conspiracy theory that the election was stolen and this IS the big lie that led to the January 6th insurrection. Do you or do you not believe the 20230 presidential election was stolen? Do you believe Biden didn't get the votes that he did? Where do your chips fall on that?

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is an interesting diversion.  The sort of thing you have described happens from time to time.  Opposites can attract my friend.  Think Carville and Matalan.  There are other famous opposite couples I suppose.  Maybe this is why you are single?  Are you looking for a man or woman who shares each and every one of your beliefs, habits, and charming personal characteristics?  I gotta tell you, that person probably does not exist!

In the realm of love, your soul mate is the person you are committed to deeply and profoundly, i.e. to the depth of your soul.  Agreeing on politics or recreational activities might help get the process started, but that is not the point of finding and becoming bonded to your soul mate!   This is obviously not what I was talking about when I said:

Now, the bit about you being immune from political posturing in this thread (or anywhere) is just hilarious.  Know thyself Rich.  You posture with the best of them.  You and Rod are soul mates in the "opposites attract" fashion.  Think Carville and Matalin.  Jim 

While I understand and appreciate your point, even if Rich can't which is, in my opinion, to be expected, I don't consider myself to be a soul mate as I understand "soul mates" with Rich on any level...

Commentary on Mr Santos from the GOP leadership, namely Kevin McCarthy, can be summarized as follows:
"Rep.-elect George Santos (R-N.Y.) has put Republicans in a pickle: How do party leaders deal with his fabrications and misrepresentations without jeopardizing their slim majority or setting a precedent?"
"The answer so far, for the most part, is to say nothing"
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3791270-george-santos-puts-gop-in-a-tight-spot/