LogFAQs > #979188393

LurkerFAQs, Active Database ( 12.01.2023-present ), DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trump Trials General Part 9
Kradek 03/04/24 6:51:23 PM #396:	mystic_belmont posted... I will say the argument for removing Trump felt pretty weak, legally speaking. Through trial and evidence a CO court found that he was guilty of insurrection and their SC agreed with that. That's the legal argument and the USSC didn't even say that Trump isn't an insurrectionist, which speaks to them agreeing with him being an insurrectionist, they just don't give a shit and want to protect him. Trial, evidence, and courts have found Trump to be an insurrectionist and the A14S3 is supposed to apply to preventing insurrectionists from coming back in. thronedfire2 posted... trying to overturn the results of the election through legal avenues(even if they had no basis like all his court cases) is NOT the same thing as inciting and participating in an insurrection. Reread what she said. She said "allegedly" for Trump "trying to overturn an election". Overturn and insurrection are 2 separate words. Trump himself has said he tried to overturn the election, he went to court 63 times to try and overturn the election, and finally, as stated, courts have found him guilty of insurrection so your argument is invalid anyways. thronedfire2 posted... edit: it was part of it, definitely, because it was part of his lie about the election being stolen. but I feel like legally they'd treat those court challenges separately. As stated above, the 2 words are not synonymous and Trump is objectively guilty of both either way. What Smith's case indicted Trump on was the fake electors scheme, that's the trial we're waiting for. A CO court, which their SC agreed with, found that Trump is an insurrectionist and that there was no insurrection without him. And the USSC didn't say that Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist, they didn't address it at all which means they don't disagree. So I reiterate, it's just our corporate mainstream media carrying water for fascists and their narratives, per usual. Kristen Welker in particular is infuriating on how shittily she covers these people. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use) <cite>Kradek posted [p:979188393] in Trump Tria... [t:80706332]...</cite> <quote>mystic_belmont posted... </cite><quote>I will say the argument for removing Trump felt pretty weak, legally speaking.</quote>Through trial and evidence a CO court found that he was guilty of insurrection and their SC agreed with that.That's the legal argument and the USSC didn't even say that Trump isn't an insurrectionist, which speaks to them agreeing with him being an insurrectionist, they just don't give a shit and want to protect him.Trial, evidence, and courts have found Trump to be an insurrectionist and the A14S3 is supposed to apply to preventing insurrectionists from coming back in.thronedfire2 posted... </cite><quote>trying to overturn the results of the election through legal avenues(even if they had no basis like all his court cases) is NOT the same thing as inciting and participating in an insurrection.</quote>Reread what she said. She said "allegedly" for Trump "trying to overturn an election".Overturn and insurrection are 2 separate words. Trump himself has said he tried to overturn the election, he went to court 63 times to try and overturn the election, and finally, as stated, courts have found him guilty of insurrection so your argument is invalid anyways.thronedfire2 posted... </cite><quote>edit: it was part of it, definitely, because it was part of his lie about the election being stolen. but I feel like legally they'd treat those court challenges separately.</quote>As stated above, the 2 words are not synonymous and Trump is objectively guilty of both either way. What Smith's case indicted Trump on was the fake electors scheme, that's the trial we're waiting for. A CO court, which their SC agreed with, found that Trump is an insurrectionist and that there was no insurrection without him. And the USSC didn't say that Trump doesn't qualify as an insurrectionist, they didn't address it at all which means they don't disagree.So I reiterate, it's just our corporate mainstream media carrying water for fascists and their narratives, per usual.Kristen Welker in particular is infuriating on how shittily she covers these people. --- My metal band, Ivory King, has 2 songs out now - allmylinks.com/ivorykingtx (all of our links there so you can choose which one you'd prefer to use)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1