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

Who was it that ruled to take Trump off the ballot in Colorado?
Oh yeah, 4 Democrat Justices appointed by Democrats.

Who was the Secretary of State in Maine that thought she could decide to remove Trump from the ballot?
Oh yeah, another Democrat

Who is the judge that decided to hear a bank fraud case without any bank claiming they were defrauded?
Oh yeah, Another Democrat

Who is the NY prosecutor bringing this case?
Oh yeah, Another Democrat

Who is the Attorney General who decided to raid an ex presidents home?
Oh yeah, Another Democrat

You can post all the whatabouts and deflections you want.
What you can't do is dispute this post.

 

Yes, and the President and CEO of CREW was conveniently appointed to an oversight position within Biden Administration @ DHS while he was leading some of these lawsuits. The Biden administration decided they wanted to officially receive his advice while he focused on targeting Biden's primary political opponent. Somewhat of a conflict of interest...
https://www.citizensforethics.org/about/our-team/
https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/photo/29205

It wasn't until Mayorkas was hit with impeachment threats that they conveniently cut him loose from his role within Homeland Security this week. He's covering his behind.

 

I'll explain something to you about our legal system that is extremely basic, but very important to understand. In order to bring a suit you MUST have an aggrieved party bringing the suit in order to have legal standing. Most of these challenges were dismissed for lack of standing. So they needed to find some anti-Trump/establishment Republicans or people willing to officially declare their party to be Republican for purposes of the lawsuits. The people funding and driving the lawsuits are extreme leftists engaging in lawfare against their political opponents. The names on the lawsuits are their pawns.

Side note: This is why it was so difficult to shut down DACA despite it being illegal and the President saying at the time that he knew it was illegal when he did it. The courts kept claiming there was no injury or aggrieved party because the outcome of DACA was a benefit to certain individuals and they held that others were not harmed by their benefit. This was also shown in Biden's illegal student loan bailout, the courts kept initially deciding that the States were not aggrieved and it was difficult to find someone harmed since the purpose was to remove a portion of debt. However, they found people who would be harmed because it would have negatively impacted a full student loan forgiveness for some individuals who had arrangements outside of Biden's unilateral action.

Additionally, in 1995 the Supreme Court denied a state who tried to impose new restrictions on federal office. The restrictions added new term limits for Congress that were clearly unconstitutional, however, the majority ruling held that states cannot impose additional conditions not defined by the Qualifications Clauses. This is why every state form to declare your candidacy lists those three basic qualifications.

Below you will find a copy of Maine's form. Notice the qualifications to run for office in Maine include:
1. Be a natural born citizen.
2. Been a resident for at least 14 years.
3. Be at least 35 years of age.

The Secretary of State illegally claimed Trump does not fulfill these qualifications because he allegedly engaged in an activity not listed on the qualifications the state can verify. And she's going to lose in court because she is clearly in the wrong and does not have the authority to do what she did.



Here's Colorado's form for comparison due to other threads removing him from the primary ballot.

 

Just another dirty Democrat trail of corruption to host election interference.

 

This is poor grammar. When criticizing someone's ability to explain something you should probably do it with proper and effective grammar. You could have very easily combined these statements into a more cohesive post. So I'll take your criticism as a comprehension issue. I'm sorry I couldn't help you.

 

What part of what @CornPop explained don't you understand or find inaccurate? Just tossing out this nonsense doesn't make you seem capable of understanding basic facts.

 

Only because it’s your guy, biden.

 

It is a federal law that directly applies to section 3 of the 14th amendment. What part of this are you willfully ignoring?

 

Agree with you. The only way to remove documents from a SCIF is to basically steal them.

 

He requested that mobilization from Pelosi and she did refuse. Or failed to act. There is no difference. He was "engaged" when he said to peacefully march to let your voices be heard. But these apparently are inconvenient facts for you, so you just ignore them.

 

James is a Democrat. In NY, the AG is elected. She ran as a Democrat. Why are you pretending otherwise? And how was the state "frauded" [sic] by a private loan between a business and a bank? I have difficulty trusting someone's legal analysis on fraud when they use the term "frauded" to describe the illegal activity.

 

None of it, my ill-informed chum. Where does it say anywhere that a conviction is required? Courts haven't figured that out, but some random guy on the internet with zero legal education has? According to your "reasoning", Jefferson Davis remained qualified and eligible to be on the ballot.

 

Exactly

 

I'll consider that as soon as you admit that Trump wanted to interfere with the lawful counting of electoral votes and tried to prop up phony "electors" to stage his coup.

 

She can't refuse. She does not even have to be consulted.
You should study up on the activation of the DC Nat'l Guard. It will help you in understanding the process.
This is nothing new and has been.
These are the convenient facts that is easily researched. And you don't have to ignore them. If you wish to be informed.

...
As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.
https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/

 

Yes. She is. Never said anything different.
Not what I was responding to.
Reread the other posters rant. Which is what I responded to.

This is why you're explanations are not accurate. They don't explain the actual statements in the topic.

 

,

@Condor060 said Democrats went after Trump for fraud between a bank and his business despite no bank alleging they were defrauded.
You then said "NO." And claimed it was merely a state AG's office running a civil case against him.

But, that state AG's office is Democrat operated. The AG is an elected Democrat. She is not non-partisan. In fact, her primary campaign platform was to go fishing for litigation against the Trump organization. The judge, who is also acting as the jury, is a Democrat. He also prejudged the case before it went to trial and attempted to unilaterally dissolve all of Trump's businesses that an appellate court had to overturn. His clerk, who has been effectively issuing rulings throughout the case, is a Democrat. Condor's statement is 100% accurate.

You are are wrong. "NO" is not accurate. Again, I laugh when you use the term "frauded" [sic] and then claim my "explanations are not accurate" in regards to the particulars of a fraud case.

 

She is 1. ONE. Democrat.
His entire rant was about all democrats all the time.

Even when I posted and linked R's are involved in getting him off State's ballots.

 

The first "Republican" named in your link is Norma Anderson. In 2019, Norma Anderson switched her party affiliation in opposition of Trump.

Source on the party switch:
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/02/...rson-leave-democratic-party-republican-party/

 

I wonder how much of the "Democrat shenanigans" are funded by the dastardly George Soros!

 

Another reason to not trust your responses. Cherry picking.

 

The source is from her Wikipedia bio. It was found after doing a basic copy/paste on her name, something the hack at Business Insider probably should have done. Who knows, the Denver Post said she left the party in 2019. Perhaps she went back so she could be part of this lawsuit and claim to be a Republican in name only? This goes back to the initial point, CREW is behind this and the people named are just the pawns.

 

I'll try one more time. The federal statute has a criminal penalty (prison term). That REQUIRES a conviction to be imposed. Since section 5 relates directly to section 3 as the enforcement piece for that section, a conviction is not implied, but required. And for the last and repeated time, the 14th amendment was not around for Jefferson Davis. You are trying to apply mystic amendments. How much more simple can I make it?

 

So what who's "behind this"? It all comes down to the interpretation of the law, right?