DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump, He can't be President, again- inedible

Wonder how the country will react if Trump is determined to be inedible to hold federal office again. Why? How?

I know it's FAKE news, but what if? According to these CONSERVATIVE experts- he's inedible.

After three indictments of former President Donald Trump, the fourth one in Georgia came not as a surprise but as a powerful exposition of the scope of Trump’s efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 presidential election.

New conservative legal scholarship spells out how and why those actions – which were observed by the public over many months – disqualify Trump from serving in the presidency ever again. And our read of the Georgia indictment, as longtime lawyers ourselves, shows why and how that disqualification can be put into effect.

The key to all of this is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “No person shall … hold any office, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … 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.” Trump took that oath at his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017.

Both Trump’s Georgia indictment, and his federal indictment in Washington, D.C., cite largely public information – and some newly unearthed material – to spell out exactly how he engaged in efforts to rebel against the Constitution, and sought and gave aid and comfort to others who also did so.


Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, conservatives themselves and members of the conservative Federalist Society, have recently published a paper declaring that under the 14th Amendment, Trump’s actions render him ineligible to hold office.

We believe the Georgia indictment provides even more detail than the earlier federal one about how Trump’s actions have already disqualified him from office, and shows a way to keep him off the ballot in 2024.

So, lets see- legal conservative scholars say he's DISQUALIFIED---damn, could we be so lucky.

I imagine if he is found to be inedible there will be a lot of folks out here starving.

Lol..Lota folks won’t be poisoned.

Truth.


In the meantime, other Americans have been suffering an 8-year case of nausea, heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, diarrhea from a steady, daily diet of d00d.
They already knew the truth.







*EDIT*

I also know the point that hitt was making, and it's actually some serious s#. At no point in our nation's history have we ever needed to deal with something like this. Almost 90 felony indictments across several jurisdictions, both state and federal hovering over one single man. We see this being played out on our TV's, but it's not entertainment. .02

Inedible? Anyway, are you speaking of the 14th amendment thing that's floating around out there?

It says what it says and it leads one to believe it could be possible. I think you'd see a bunch of Trump supporters pulling their hair out and wanting to attack the capital again. Or maybe just hang SCOTUS if they that's their thinking.

I hope it's true. But who knows.

I have my opinions on how this SHOULD play out, but I'm also really really interested in the logic behind whatever the end result may be.

Example: "giving aid and comfort"... what does that even mean these days? You think about what that looked like back when it was written, but how do you apply that today? It's a serious law with serious ramifications... but with the passage of time large grey areas have developed.

How does it apply today…“Giving aid and comfort.” Promising pardons, paying legal fees for dirty deeds, to name two. I’m sure there are folks here that can point to more examples.

I specifically meant how that is officially interpreted for legal purposes.

I think it's more like "Grey areas have been created". It still means what it's always meant. However, blurring the lines has created confusion about such matters among the people.

I, like many people aren't qualified enough to understand and interpret the law. We see every day where even constitutional lawyers and scholars disagree on the meaning of the constitution much less other laws. So to some extent I think it has always been a grey area. But I don't think that means it's due to the passage of time. What the passage of time has created as I see it now is quite simple. While millions upon millions of people such as myself can't really interpret the law, often times people believe the interpretation which confirms their own personal bias.

I believe that people can look at laws and circumstances and get a grasp of what charges may be hard to prove. ie.... I think the RICO law will be hard to prove in the Georgia case. While people who were indicted may have broken laws, proving they were working together and it was orchestrated is a much harder bar to reach. But then again I'm not sure of the actual wording and phrasing of Georgia's RICO laws and guidelines of that law.

My examples could logically be useful in a legal proceeding. Like I said there is probably a dozen other examples of “Giving aid and comfort”. Paying lawyer travel expenses to different states to visit these conspirators. There is only one interpretation of this law. I sure hope the legal system doesn’t treat trump unlike everyone else as they’ve been doing, and interpret this “aid and conform” to something in his favor, as if he didn’t give aid and comfort to any of these co-defendants and others not named….common man.

Exactly, blurring the lines intentionally in contempt.

Aid and comfort don’t matter. He led a coup d’tat against the very government he was then leading… That IS the part about engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the US. Guilty af, should be immediately disqualified and tried for treason.

Ain't it funny----actually really sad---maybe UNBELIEVABLE- Trump elected to "drain the SWAMP"- now YEARS after his loss- we have an ex- President- selling collector action figures/cards, created his own media outlet- hysterical name of "SOCIAL TRUTH"- to spread lies, loses civil case undermining his decree- "as a rich guy you can grab them by the .ussy, and get away with it", being tried for lying about/ fraudulently using monies to pay off porn star, been indited over 90 times, should/could go to prison for leading an insurrection against peaceful transfer of power- AND, the cherry on top- leads the Republican Party nominee list to become President again.......where are those other slugs- George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama....real losers all----we are SO MUCH BETTER OFF NOW- why, because we're still in the grips of MAGA, with our fuhrer, Trump- who only hires, fires, and pardons the best......dang, ain't things great.