Republicans drafting bills to remove Biden from the ballot in GA, AZ, PA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the progressives here were all like “hur, dur, we got drumpf off the ballot wooo hoo!” a few days ago but now the same people are all “hey no fair!” when other states start moving to take Biden off the ballot. It’s hilarious. Like 5 year olds.

Because it’s stupid. They have no case against Biden. Trump disqualified himself by engaging in insurrection after he lost.

Then why didn’t your bearded god-king Jack Smith charge him with insurrection?

Why didn’t the Senate convict him of insurrection after Nancy Pelosi impeached him (again)?


Because he didn’t engage in any insurrection. He asked the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard”. And that is not encouraging an insurrection. And your own dem senators and special counsel know it.


Meanwhile, there’s an insurrection happening on the Hill every other day now with pro-Hamas demonstrators shutting down proceedings and interfering with the work of congress, but that’s ok

Was defending the orange lard criminal really worth this many words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

There are minimum standards to file a case in a court of law. No lawyer worth their salt will risk their bar license to file a frivolus case against Bide that has zero evidence. And any who do will be counter-sued for court costs, lawyer fees and a bar filing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

AI. Bad AI.

[Anonymous]

NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

It requires an actual crime or at least facts of a crime to do this. Lawyers can't just conjure things up and make it stick, contrary to the beliefs of the right that somehow there weren't facts adjudicated or due process in the CO matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

It requires an actual crime or at least facts of a crime to do this. Lawyers can't just conjure things up and make it stick, contrary to the beliefs of the right that somehow there weren't facts adjudicated or due process in the CO matter.

There's always that pesky laptop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

That’s ridiculous. There is no comparison. Everyone knows Trump is guilty of insurrection and much more. Everyone knows there is no evidence and no case against Biden. For politics, Republican pretend otherwise, but they know they are lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

It requires an actual crime or at least facts of a crime to do this. Lawyers can't just conjure things up and make it stick, contrary to the beliefs of the right that somehow there weren't facts adjudicated or due process in the CO matter.

There's always that pesky laptop.

Good lord you people. Just try to listen yourselves. Take off the tin foil from your heads and really listen to yourself. Britney was put under conservatorship for less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

It requires an actual crime or at least facts of a crime to do this. Lawyers can't just conjure things up and make it stick, contrary to the beliefs of the right that somehow there weren't facts adjudicated or due process in the CO matter.

There's always that pesky laptop.

Barr, Durham and Trump had that "laptop" for two years before the 2020 election and couldn't find or make anything on it to tie Joe Biden to any crimes. What males you think, 4 years later, there is data on it that would be different than what they had then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

That’s ridiculous. There is no comparison. Everyone knows Trump is guilty of insurrection and much more. Everyone knows there is no evidence and no case against Biden. For politics, Republican pretend otherwise, but they know they are lying.

You mean everyone at the Takoma Park Co-op. Everyone else who doesn't love in the land of make believe is still unsure exactly what happened on Jan 6th. And I'm a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

It requires an actual crime or at least facts of a crime to do this. Lawyers can't just conjure things up and make it stick, contrary to the beliefs of the right that somehow there weren't facts adjudicated or due process in the CO matter.

There's always that pesky laptop.

Barr, Durham and Trump had that "laptop" for two years before the 2020 election and couldn't find or make anything on it to tie Joe Biden to any crimes. What males you think, 4 years later, there is data on it that would be different than what they had then?

Well find out in a few months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think lawfare is the only sensible course of action. It doesn't make sense to have the left engage in this without any similar response from the right.

Go for it and see how that works out. Maybe you could file a few more challenges to the 2020 election while you’re at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

This is how every constitutional interpretation happens. A lower court conducts a trial and makes a ruling, it gets appealed, and if it is a new constitutional question it ends up at the US Supreme Court. Nothing starts in there. It has to start in a lower court somewhere.

As it will happen in numerous states for Biden taking foreign bribes. Whether he did it or not is irrelevant. Republicans will gum things up for Biden for the next 11 months and Dems have them the idea.

That’s ridiculous. There is no comparison. Everyone knows Trump is guilty of insurrection and much more. Everyone knows there is no evidence and no case against Biden. For politics, Republican pretend otherwise, but they know they are lying.

You mean everyone at the Takoma Park Co-op. Everyone else who doesn't love in the land of make believe is still unsure exactly what happened on Jan 6th. And I'm a Democrat.

If you are questioning what happened on 1/6/21, then maybe go and read the various filing documents, sentencing documents and plea deals that have taken place over the last 2 years. Primary, documentary evidence is hard to dispute, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states.”

Fair.

Not really. The grounds are baseless. The fact is, Trump "was engaged in an insurrection" - other than being a born American and over 35, those are the three requirements to be president. The GOP has zero grounds for this performative BS and all it does is further degrade our republic. So I guess in that sense it is on brand.

The GOP and Trump legal filings suggest Biden is immune presidentially for his actions and that Kamala Harris has the right to change the course of electoral college vote counting, so I suppose they should have at it next year.

I'm not a Trump fan but that is absolutely not a fact. It's an opinion. If he was convicted then you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't.

It is an opinion of a court after 5 days of testimony that wasn't disputed by either of the litigants. There is no constitutional requirement for a conviction.

An opinion of a kangaroo court. This will be overturned by the SC. In the meantime, Republicans who are far nastier are going to have Biden removed in a dozen states and they'll time it so that the appeals will happen after the election. This is a dumb move by the Democrats.

The plaintiffs were republicans you moron.

The court is all Dems you moron.

There would't be a case if GOP plaintiffs hadn't filed for it.

The judges have been consistent in their application of the law. Or are you projecting what "republican" judges would have done differently? Because Judge Luttig, one of the most conservaitve jurists in the country, disagrees with you.

I'm a Democrat. But until Trump (who I can't stand) is actually convicted of insurrection, removing him from the ballot based on a state court ruling is ridiculous and sets terrible precedent. This will come back to bite Dems in the end.

But he’s absolutely immune from any criminal charges, remember?

What?

They say he cannot be disqualified until he is convicted. But then also say he cannot be convicted because he has absolute immunity.

https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-lawyers-ask-appeals-court-135200330.html?ref=upstract.com