Is Trump qualified to run for the presidency?

I recognize your personal opinion.

 

Yes, South Carolina captured federal forts in that state, which is usually recognized as the beginning of the civil war.

That doesn't mean that insurrections have to take that same kind of action.

An insurrection can be a more immediate failure.

 

Of course Hitler's beer hall putsch dies aborning and they actually tried for an inssurection and were quite well armed. The people in 1/6 were for all practical purposes unarmed

 

What the 1/6 defendants used against the Capitol Police.




There weren't that many people at the beer hall and they weren't that well armed.

 

You have two guns no shots neither was at the capital Sickness is on film inside the capital building doing just fine well after he was supposedly bludgeoned. And yeah that's the assortment of weaponry I'd bring if I were planning a take over of the government. That all sounds suspiciously like the sort of collection of ad hoc crap people would grab on the spur of the moment if they thought they were under attack.

 

I don't think the charges are bogus. they are serious though and it should be up to the jury. Based on the indictments, there is more than enough prima facie evidence to warrant such an indictment on all four jurisdictions.

 

They are as bogus as Trumps strain legal theories for which he is being charged a crime. Show me where RICO has every been used against a political campaign challenging the out come of an election and trying to have fraudulent votes removed from the tally.

 

Then you can look forward to them being dismissed. But ... don't hold your breath.

 

Where do you have your license to practise law out of?
I know quite a bit, holding a license to practise law.

Due process of law, the most basic indicia of which are notice and the right to be heard prior to punishment for a crime (such as seditious conspiracy which constitutes 'rebellion'), applies prior to any punishment. Can you tell the class what court case that's from?

 

Yes and it differs from yours.

 

Qualified? Not even slightly.

Eligible? Unfortunately.

 

Fake News. Did you hear the arguments today? I didn't hear a lot of chatter from the Justices supporting the rather crazed claim that you could strip the voters of the right to select Trump as their president based on a pretense that 14a/3 supposedly empowered them to strip him from the ballot.

The entire charade of pretending the protest with some parts that could be described as riot, was an 'insurrection' was all a pile of lies aimed at using 14A/3 to prevent Trump from being reelected. We told you repeatedly that this was all a steaming pile of crap, first it wasn't an insurrection, second that 14A/3 didn't establish jurisdiction over the President, and it sure as hell didn't empower States to ballot strip Bribed Joe's opponent from the ballot.

Yet, you would hear none of it.

'The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments was to invoke federal authority over questions of slavery, citizenship, and discriminatory conduct and to supersede state power in all of these areas. It did the exact opposite of empowering states to determine eligibility for office and to settle matters of disqualification. '

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/202...nt-dq-seem-to-go-poorly-for-colorado-n3782573

1. Are you dealing with any embarrassment?
2. Are you wondering how you could have got this so wrong?
3. Are disappointed that you were so badly mislead by your sources?

Or did you know the entire time that this was all a steaming load of crap and so are not dealing with any contrition, at all?