Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

You had to move goal posts when your rant was called out.
See your original nonsense.
You're the only one making false statements.

See your post that was nothing but false statements.
Why are you here?

 

You cherry picked 1 person out of the 6.

 

I checked the first person on your list. That's not cherry picking, that's simply verifying the credibility of the report. You act like I checked everyone and picked the one person that had a disparity. That's not what happened. I copy/pasted the name of the first person. Top hit on Google was her Wikipedia page that was all of about 10 sentences long. One of which said she switched her party in opposition of Trump. I clicked the reference and it was a news article from the Denver Post. For all I know there are more discrepancies with other people on your list too. What's "terrible" is being deceived. I'm sorry if verifying misinformation has caused some cognitive dissonance. That's not something that I can rectify. I get you want to keep repeating it's "mostly" Republicans bringing the lawsuit and someone on record with Colorado media switching her party hurts that stance.

 

I'd like to see where @Condor060 claimed "all Democrats" did this "all the time." Why not quote it? Otherwise it seems like you moved the goalposts and this is just lashing out from being called out.

 

...

 

So when I said, Democrats didn't haul an ex president into a trial about bank fraud, you thought that meant every Democrat on the planet.
You couldn't divine that was pointed at the Judge and the prosecutor? Even after the other post I made?
And this is how you came to the conclusion it was every Democrat on the planet?
All you have done is expose your own comprehension difficulties. lol

 

One last time since you just don't seem to get it for some reason. The legislation that requires a conviction for section 3 was not written into law until after Jefferson Davis' death. In order to enforce section 3, there must be a conviction under section 5 since the federal law has a prison sentence as part of its penalty. Are you just blindly ignoring this, or do you truly not understand the concept? I've tried my best to make it as clear as possible.

 

CITE? Do you not realize that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, and JEFFERSON DAVIS DID NOTDIE UNTIL1889/

This makes me think that you just make things up and pretend that they're true. Your post is entirely bogus, and your credibility is zilch. There's no requirement for a conviction whatsoever.

 

You do realize that the legislation that applies the enforcement of section 3 was not written or became law until AFTER Davis was dead. Section 5 says that Congress may write legislation that enforces section 3. "Provisions of this article" includes section 3. They DID write legislation, which became law (18 USC 2383) to which a conviction must be had since there is a prison sentence as part of the penalty. God in Heaven, do you get it now? If you don't or won't get it now, I just give up on you.

 

LOL! Yes, repeating a frivolous argument makes it more credible. You have utterly no idea how to make a legal argument. And it shows.

None of what you regurgitated means that states have no authority to determine eligibility to stand for election. IT ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONVICTION.

 

It's not frivolous, it's the federal law of these United States. Here's how badly this argument is going to get its ass kicked. The argument couldn't even win in democrat-held State courts(California). This Trump gambit is the same thing as Navarro and Eastman: It's a novel election theory. And it has no basis in law.

State VS Federalism had been decided via Texas VS United States, and a bunch of other cases on Federalism. Like I said, it's not whether this argument gets its ass kicked, it's how much. I'm hoping for a 9-0, realistically I can see a 6-3.

 

Your inability to use proper words and constant blame on a specific group was exposed.
It's all you ever do. I just showed you that.
And you must have agreed, because you quickly changed your words.

 

Weren't you the one who made up words to describe Trump's alleged illegal behavior earlier in this thread?

 

It's "stealing", and there's no evidence that happened, my grasping chum. Unless you have evidence of that, maybe you should wait for Hur's report.

This is in very sharp contrast with Trump's unlawful retention of boxes and boxes of government documents.

 

So the magic SCIF fairy delivered then to Bidens home
Got it

 

Yet everyone responding to your post says something different.
Funny how that works

 

So, you zero evidence? Then just say so, my friend.

 

Because every post you make you say something different.
I have to respond to the changes you make with every post.

 

Make America Brown 2024

 

It's pretty shocking to say the least. The mental gymnastics to justify removing the ability of Americans to vote for their preferred candidate are getting very intense.

 

The only "mental gymnastics" here involves the claims that a conviction is required.

 

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Are you telling me that the charge of insurrection requires no actual criminal trial? Somebody can just accuse you and the accusation is good enough?

 

So you also agree that watching TV is "engaging in an insurrection?" Interesting... learn that in Con Law?