The minority's opinion on today's case is truly mindblowing.

He didn’t participate in the case? Are you sure?

Billy, don’t be a hero.

 

It was a hearing, not a trial.

 

Yes, because SCOTUS decided that only Congress could do what the states have done.

 

So how did he appeal?

 

No it was a trial.

 

Again, you believe what makes you feel all puffed up and pleased with yourself.

 

Like he declassified all of the documents….by thinking about it.

 

I never claimed that. I stated
The SCOTUS has already recognized the fact that it doesn't include the president.
which they did.
You can go round and round with this all night long.
It doesn't change the fact that the president was pulled from the amendment before being ratified and a reason was given for the president being pulled.
It doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS already recognised this and stated it.
It doesn't change the wording of the 14th clearly showing the president is not an officer of the government.

 

No, the SCOTUS has not already recognised this and stated this.

Repeating it does not make it so.

 

Because there was a hearing. Not a trial.

 

A hearing that you claim that the Orange Dingleberry didn’t take part in?

 

Right, exactly as Section 5 says:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The only legislation concerning enforcement that's been passed since giving all Confederate soldiers amnesty (minus a few officers) was to create 18 USC 2383.

 

Now you're just reaching for excuses.
I provided you with Judge Jacksons statement but you can act like it doesn't exist all you want.

I also provided you with the following historical record

The first draft of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provided in effect that: "No person shall be President or Vice President, Senator or Representative, or elector of President of President and Vice President or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
The words "President or Vice President" were deliberately edited out of the final version of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This, together with the disqualification of presidential electors and vice-presidential elector who have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" makes it clear that the Framers' of Section 3 did not intend for it to apply to presidents or vice presidents.
Congress itself voted to strike the words president and vice president from Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment before its ratification in 1868.

And you are free to ignore it all you want.
Had you actually done any research you would have found this out for yourself.
When you can find any legislation that disputes it, let me know.

 

When was the jury selection? Who was called to testify on behalf of the defense? What was the jury's verdict? Give us a timeline of all that.

 

No. You won’t read anything anyway.

C’mon, Bill…you can use Google.

 

It was a trial.

 

So you don't understand that trials don't need jury's to be trials

 

Civil Courts can determine LIABILITY. They CANNOT determine GUILT for a crime.
TRUMP HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT IN THE NATION.

 

He’s going to deny this without knowing anything about it. Watch.

 

TRUMP WAS NEVER CHARGED... NEVER INDICTED FOR INSURRECTION... and, therefore, never found guilty.

Trump DID testify at the Congressional INVESTIGATIVE proceedings.

 

Statements, questions, concerns et al, raised by Jackson or anyone else in the course of a hearing, together with references to historical records, are elements of the deliberative process culminating in the Opinion of the court. Thus there is no need to refer to the deliberative process to understand what they ultimately concluded. The conclusions are contained in the Opinion. And it is the Opinion itself that counts.

The opinion does NOT state that Section 3 does not apply to the president. Nor has SCOTUS ever said that it does not apply.

It DOES, however, state that it is for Congress to ascertain to whom it applies.

 

Quite right. He was never indicted for insurrection because there was never a criminal trial.

He was, however, found to have engaged in insurrection in a civil trial.

 

I understand that there wasn't a trial in Colorado to determine if Trump committed treason.

Can you tell us under what circumstances a trial doesn't have a jury?

 

I didn't say he had been.

I said: "It can also be determined in a CIVIL proceeding that a person has engaged in insurrection, meriting a civil penalty".

 

No it wasn't. It was a hearing. It only lasted 5 days...lol.

An actual trial would have lasted more than 5 days.