The lawyer argues he can only be prosecuted if removed from office through an impeachment conviction.
The Senate GOP argued they didn’t need convict him because he could be criminally prosecuted.
Such a fookin shit show of a clown car these folks are.
Character matters. Or used to.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/06/trump-biden-stutter/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
(no message)
Unless you are one of the folks who despises American values?
Personally, I'm far more concerned about his official policies and actions.
You know, the things that can actually affect our lives and businesses.
he would do.
(no message)
(no message)
Sure, I disagreed with lots of his policies and decisions. But that’s not the point.
(no message)
the scores of Republicans who worked with and for him.
(no message)
(no message)
Very Breshnevian move by your side. Bad enough on it's own, but then to moan about democracy while doing it? Breathtaking.
from the attached article...
----------------
Early last year, University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle raised an intriguing legal question in POLITICO Magazine concerning Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for elected office: Could the 14th Amendment, which prevented ex-Confederates from seeking office after the Civil War, also bar the former president from reclaiming office after his actions in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election?
Now, with Trump facing down his fourth criminal indictment — this time for his effort to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia — the idea is gaining traction. Earlier this month, a pair of conservative legal scholars affiliated with the Federalist Society — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — endorsed the theory in the New York Times. A recent piece in the Atlantic added two more voices to the chorus from across the ideological spectrum: Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School, and retired conservative judge J. Michael Luttig both support the notion that the Constitution stands between Trump and the White House. It even came up during the first GOP debate this week, when former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he would not “support somebody who’s been convicted of a serious felony or who is disqualified under our Constitution.”
-----------------
You're terribly ill-informed...wittingly, or un-wittingly...
Link: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/14th-amendment-insurrection-00112777
(no message)
I am pointing out the absurdity of your description in your post directly above.
That would be for the better of the country.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The panel endeavors to box in advocate re their respective positions.
The danger in not answering yes or no, is that the Court's takeaway is that the advocate's bottom line is untenable.
Better to answer, "Yes ..... but that's not the question/issue before the Court ...... "
(no message)
(no message)
here's an example...Q: Is Killing Wrong?...A: "Yes"...but...there are times...as in "Just Wars"...that if certain conditions are met, then a "Prudential Judgement" would make it acceptable.
I've found that a number of posters here don't want to go beyond "Yes, or No"...
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
claim of my lying about that NEJM study...you remember...the one I walked YOU through using the actual posts from both he and I...and at the end, you're on record as saying "That's Fair"...i.e. I didn't lie...he did.
So, if there's something you want to get off your chest...let's hear it.
Again, I concurred that he called you a liar. That was all. I would NEVER defend you or any of the vomit you spew over a fine man like Baron.
...who's telling the truth?
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=120538
(no message)
Link: Lying liar.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)