If you are wondering why Democrat are going full throttle to punish January Sixers, it is that they want to inflate the seriousness of a rather feeble political riot, a a rather mild one compared to the BLM burning and looting, to establish the riot as being an “insurrection.” Of course it wasn’t an insurrection, and it wouldn’t have happened had Pelosi and Bouser honored Trump’s suggestion of deploying the National Guard.
By calling it an insurrection Democrats hope to disqualify Donald Trump from running for office in 2024 by invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 3 reads as follows:
Blockquote No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
George Soros affiliated troublemaking groups are trying to push the label “insurrection” onto the lip of everyone, especially among those reporting about the incident in the media
At every opportunity, I would advise MAGA fans to correct those who refer to the riot as an insurrection. It was not.
The Dems and their supporters do the exact same thing on 1/6 to keep their man in power and you would call it one of the darkest days in American history.
Low T doesn’t read my posts, because despite my senility, I seem to have my way with Low T when it comes to expressing a logical, wholesome point of view. I surmise Low T is trying to avoid further polemic beat downs. Just think how I’d have done when not senile. Low T would have to run to one of those liberal safe places.
It makes no difference if Pence feels he can’t do it lol. If I feel like I can’t drive past a green light and you tell me to does that make it illegal?
Submitting ALTERNATE electors which has precedent.
Gore was my selection in 2000. And whether he was or wasn’t, I believe he had a legitimate basis to present alternate electors to Florida.
Harris isn’t my selection in 2020 but if I, and 60% of the country, went to bed thinking she won and then woke up to see her opponent got ridiculous ballots awarded to them at 4am after the election was paused, I wouldn’t argue against her attempt to defend her legitimate win.
See above.
We’ve shown you it over and over. You don’t want it to be true until CNN or NYTimes gives you the go ahead that it is true. That’ll happen one day too. Remember, we’re always early, but always right.
There is precedent for the VP accepting alternate electors. I’ve cited it in the past. You’ve read it.
Just because talking heads or legal scholars that you agree with say it’s illegal doesn’t make it so. For every media pundit or legal scholar you have, I have one that rebuts.
The SCOTUS hasn’t officially ruled on this matter because it was never brought to them. Congress has tried to jump in to regulate this little annoyance they created by first creating the 12th amendment and then enacting the Electoral Count Act. Both were in effective and still leave open this pathway.
I get that you don’t like that and you will parrot the same line as nauseam but I have precedent on my side. You don’t.
And we’ve gone over this over and over. The vast majority of these courts didn’t allow evidentiary hearings to occur. They summarily dismissed or they claimed they didn’t have jurisdiction or proper standing was not achieved by plaintiff.
That’s not the same as “1-60”. It’s more like 1-0
If the game never starts you can’t say you won or lost it.
