The semantics of that would probably be argued as well because I can imagine there being a discussion on whether the oath applies for the duration of the term in office only. So, for example, if a person became a senator and served their term, and then committed insurrection afterward (or were alleged to), would that preclude them from holding office again? Do US officials only have to swear the one oath when taking their first office with the idea being that once you've sworn one time, it carries for life?
But leaving that aside, my understanding is that the SCOTUS might adjudicate on whether the amendment applies to the position of POTUS. If it doesn't, then anyone otherwise eligible can run for it, regardless of their insurrection history while having held lower positions of government or just as a private citizen. They just can't become virtually anything else like congressperson, senator or elector.
Of course, I'm open to correction on this, but this is how I understand it to be at the moment.
I don't think anyone needs to be worried about Trump tbh. He has been infatically clear he is prepared to make the honorable sacrifice.
Just to be clear of your values, you either:
Don't believe insurrection against a government should disbar someone from running for government.
Don't believe TFG incited an insurrection.
The latter has a burden of proof, the former is in the constitution. Colorado has determined that insurrection has been proven, USSC don't get to rule on that piece.
The amendments doesn’t say he has to be convicted or even take part. It states "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Trump has said, on numerous occasions, that he is on the side of those that took part in Jan 6. Give comfort.
The only argument is therefore whether to amendment is applicable to a POTUS or someone running for POTUS.
You do understand that it's the JURY that decide on the amount right , not the Judge?
You do get that right?
Right?
Are you sure you're opposed to election interference?!
Giuliani has filed Chaper 11 bankruptcy in New York listing debts totalling $500m.
What did the democrats do?
The motion to stop Trump from running again in Colorado was from 4 republicans and 2 independents no?
Americas Knightmayor.
Funny how he only just noticed.
But sure, the Democrats stole the last election by managing to simultaneously rig the election in multiple states across the entire country involving thousands and thousands of election staff, without there being any evidence whatsoever. You know that right?
Oh wait...
But wait, there's more. Seems like TFG and another budwan, Ronna Romney McDaniel, tried to pressure lackeys in Michigan to not certify the results in Detroit. There's tape. It's really 'the gang that couldn't shoot strait'-quality conspiracy.
McDaniel hasn't denied the call, just said she was doing her job or somesuch.
McDaniel is the chair of the RNC. Imagine, TFG destroying *yet another* career. Well, there's plenty of prior art.
The latter, I dont believe he incited an Insurrection.
Haven't you also effectively denied the rape as well? Everything appears to be a democratic plot in your eyes. And you claim to be a centrist but ignore the evidence at every turn. At best you'll say Trump can be a bit rude...
Doesn't have to have. The amendment states "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.”
He has claimed on many occasions to support those that took part in the insurrection. Thus given comfort.
Being a blatant hypocrit is much more accepted these days, it means they have no moral authority and your arguments are wrong, but it doesn't stop it, as Mone pointed out in the UK, lying to people often isn't illegal.
So Barack Obama appointed a judge in 2010 to get one over on Rudy in 2023?
Which means that legally you have no issue with the Colorado supreme Court and would solely be focused on the defense of the allegations against trump (where he has been found to be an insurrectionist), accepting his inability to run if found guilty (or reversed on appeal in this case).
Nothing to do with that insurrection he instigated?
Do you ever think that from the Dems POV Trump is their ace card? He lost in 2018, lost the POTUS in 2020, and cost them senate races since. There is little doubt that the massive vote for Biden was as much a vote to stop Trump as a vote for Biden. (and in a 2 horse race, just like Trump used to his advantage against HC, just not being as bad as the other one is enough).
So is it really in their interests to stop Trump running? He won't have picked up any new voters and will have lost quite a few since the last election to his carry-on and his, childish, refusal to concede. Somebody like Haley won't carry the same level pf distrust and fear as letting Trump win will do and so will not lead to such a high voter turnout.
Trump is leading well in polls. but polls are easy to select when there is nothing on the line and essentially it is nothing but a game at this point. But come election day, people will gain be faced with a simply choice. There is nothing to suggest that anyone has changed their minds about Trump, at least in his favour.
Either this guy believes what he is saying, in which case he's mental,
Or
He doesn't believe what he's saying, in which case he is a lying sack of ****.
What is he worried spies in catholic churches would find?
It's really remarkable how many people in and around the GOP are willing to sacrifice their careers and personal lives for this man. I have honestly never seen anything like it in my life. Jim Jones and the People's Temple are the nearest thing I can think of for this feverish devotion to Trump.
So now you're saying that you visit so many threads on boards that you literally don't ever have time to come back here and reply to people challenging your nonsense posts? Sounds like you might need to get out a bit more there, lad.
I haven't watched many of his videos in the past few months but it seems to me that the narrative seems to be focused solely on vengeance and getting elected solely for that end. They're not even pretending to want to make anything better, much less great.
W
T
F
The Revengers.
Nope that wasnt what I said at all, kid.
Quite the opposite in fact.
So you have time to reply but not time to answer.
Interesting.
You do it on countless occasions, even citing persecution or 'not obliged to respond'. Do you want to be cited on this?
Where was this obviously scripted & prepared speech given?
Madness. And what a truly awful speaker with the drop of emphasis at the end of each phrasing. Just terrible.
