As The Democrats lecture Us About Threats To Democracy They Demonstrate It

[Rightguide]

Democracy on the Ballot? Majority of Dems Oppose Certifying a Trump Victory​

By Ben Kew | 6:30 AM on March 12, 2024

The political party claiming that a Donald Trump election victory would mean the end of American democracy has other ideas if the result does not go their way.

According to the latest survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of Democrats surveyed said they would prefer Congress to refuse to certify a Trump victory if it comes to pass:

More here: https://redstate.com/benkew/2024/03...ms-oppose-certifying-a-trump-victory-n2171246

So the Democrats who have been at war with the democratic process since before the 2016 election are still at it and all the time telling us how Republicans are a threat to democracy. You see, everything they accuse the GOP of they are doing exactly that. This is a proven fact pattern.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Democracy on the Ballot? Majority of Dems Oppose Certifying a Trump Victory​

By Ben Kew | 6:30 AM on March 12, 2024

The political party claiming that a Donald Trump election victory would mean the end of American democracy has other ideas if the result does not go their way.

According to the latest survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of Democrats surveyed said they would prefer Congress to refuse to certify a Trump victory if it comes to pass:

More here: https://redstate.com/benkew/2024/03...ms-oppose-certifying-a-trump-victory-n2171246

So the Democrats who have been at war with the democratic process since before the 2016 election are still at it and all the time telling us how Republicans are a threat to democracy. You see, everything they accuse the GOP of they are doing exactly that. This is a proven fact pattern.

What would you do to stop a dictator from coming to power?

 

[ll74]

The Constitution states that no officer engaging in insurrection shall hold office. SCOTUS has stated Congress must act to invoke this. As most Democrats believe 45 engaged in insurrection, it is valid for them to want to have Congress invoke the provision.

 

[Rightguide]

The Constitution states that no officer engaging in insurrection shall hold office. SCOTUS has stated Congress must act to invoke this. As most Democrats believe 45 engaged in insurrection, it is valid for them to want to have Congress invoke the provision.

Trump was not convicted of insurrection. Your post is BS. They were engaging in more election interference and insurrection, when they mounted the phony Russia collusion conspiracy, The phony Mueller investigation, the phony Ukraine quid pro quo phone call investigation, the two phony impeachments, the lies by 51 retired intelligence officials, the phony scripted J6 investigation, the phony Jack Smith prosecution, the now collapsing White house directed Fani Willis prosecution of Trump in Georgia, the phony ballot denial cases against Trump by Democrats, etc, etc.

 

[ll74]

Trump was not convicted of insurrection. Your post is BS. They were engaging in more election interference and insurrection, when they mounted the phony Russia collusion conspiracy, The phony Mueller investigation, the phony Ukraine quid pro quo phone call investigation, the two phony impeachments, the lies by 51 retired intelligence officials, the phony scripted J6 investigation, the phony Jack Smith prosecution, the now collapsing White house directed Fani Willis prosecution of Trump in Georgia, the phony ballot denial cases against Trump by Democrats, etc, etc.

Yes, you completely ignored my point.

Shocker.

My comment was 100% correct.

 

[Rightguide]

The Constitution states that no officer engaging in insurrection shall hold office. SCOTUS has stated Congress must act to invoke this. As most Democrats believe 45 engaged in insurrection, it is valid for them to want to have Congress invoke the provision.

You'll have to elect more communists for that to work. Congress can not adjudicate a citizen to be guilty of a crime without a trial:

In the United States, Congress does not have the authority to adjudicate a citizen guilty of a crime without a trial. Let me explain why:

1. Bill of Attainder: Historically, there was a concept called the “bill of attainder”, which allowed Congress to declare a person guilty without granting them a trial. However, this practice is no longer valid. The bill of attainder was used by Henry VIII in 1542 and led to the execution of several prominent figures1.
2. Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. It states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless indicted by a grand jury. Additionally, no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves, and no private property can be taken without due process of law2.
3. Court Proceedings: Only a court has the authority to hold a trial, evaluate evidence, and determine the merits of a claim or accusation. Congress itself lacks the power to bring criminal charges or initiate a criminal prosecution34.

In summary, Congress cannot unilaterally declare a citizen guilty of a crime without due process, and any such action would violate constitutional principles. Trials are essential to protect individual rights and ensure justice.

Learn more​

1heritage.bafta.org2constitutioncenter.org3heritage.org4mololamken.com5politics.stackexchange.com+4 more

Always know that I'm here to educate you so that you can redeem your wasted youth.

 

[ll74]

You'll have to elect more communists for that to work. Congress can not adjudicate a citizen to be guilty of a crime without a trial:

In the United States, Congress does not have the authority to adjudicate a citizen guilty of a crime without a trial. Let me explain why:

1. Bill of Attainder: Historically, there was a concept called the “bill of attainder”, which allowed Congress to declare a person guilty without granting them a trial. However, this practice is no longer valid. The bill of attainder was used by Henry VIII in 1542 and led to the execution of several prominent figures1.
2. Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. It states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless indicted by a grand jury. Additionally, no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves, and no private property can be taken without due process of law2.
3. Court Proceedings: Only a court has the authority to hold a trial, evaluate evidence, and determine the merits of a claim or accusation. Congress itself lacks the power to bring criminal charges or initiate a criminal prosecution34.

In summary, Congress cannot unilaterally declare a citizen guilty of a crime without due process, and any such action would violate constitutional principles. Trials are essential to protect individual rights and ensure justice.

Learn more​

1heritage.bafta.org2constitutioncenter.org3heritage.org4mololamken.com5politics.stackexchange.com+4 more

Always know that I'm here to educate you so that you can redeem your wasted youth.

Nothing you said he is relevant to my comment.

But keep trying.

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing you said he is relevant to my comment.

But keep trying.

It prevents Congress from "finding" Trump guilty of insurrection. That is the point.

 

[schism666]

It prevents Congress from "finding" Trump guilty of insurrection. That is the point.

were you always a cuck or are your balls only for trump's purse?

 

[ll74]

It prevents Congress from "finding" Trump guilty of insurrection. That is the point.

It does not. But good try.

 

[Rightguide]

It does not. But good try.

Yes, it does for the reasons I posted but you were too illiterate to read with comprehension.

 

[ll74]

Yes, it does for the reasons I posted but you were too illiterate to read with comprehension.

Yes, I get that you see the word "conviction" where it does not exist.

But again, you focus on the wrong things most of the time rather than the reasons why Democrats would challenge election results and work towards disqualification.

What they wouldn't do is declare martial law and appoint fake electors.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, I get that you see the word "conviction" where it does not exist.

But again, you focus on the wrong things most of the time rather than the reasons why Democrats would challenge election results and work towards disqualification.

What they wouldn't do is declare martial law and appoint fake electors.

The Democrats have challenged every Republican Presidential election victory back to Nixon. What they cannot do is disqualify the winner based on their "belief," without trial or due process, that he committed insurrection.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The Democrats have challenged every Republican Presidential election victory back to Nixon. What they cannot do is disqualify the winner based on their "belief," without trial or due process, that he committed insurrection.

Not back to Nixon they haven't. Or if you have some proof they have, pony up the link Kimosabi

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...democrats-have-objected-presidential-electio/

 

[ll74]

The Democrats have challenged every Republican Presidential election victory back to Nixon. What they cannot do is disqualify the winner based on their "belief," without trial or due process, that he committed insurrection.

They've filed protest votes, as have Republicans. As none have had Senatorial support, there was never any intention of proceeding to a challenge.... And every single person in the chamber knew that every time.

There wasn't a single protest vote that delayed certification beyond the expected timeframe nor was there any interruption by a violent mob breaking windows and assaulting officers.

If Congress votes to disqualify the winner from holding office because they determine it to be an insurrection, then they do.

 

[Rotadom]

Always know that I'm here to educate you so that you can redeem your wasted youth.

How is responding with irrelevant nonsense educating anyone?

 

[Rightguide]

They've filed protest votes, as have Republicans. As none have had Senatorial support, there was never any intention of proceeding to a challenge.... And every single person in the chamber knew that every time.'

Which is a challenge.

There wasn't a single protest vote that delayed certification beyond the expected timeframe nor was there any interruption by a violent mob breaking windows and assaulting officers.

Challenges nonetheless, as I stated.

Who shot up the House of Representatives in 1954? Who planted the bomb in the Senate restroom in the 70s? Answer: The Left.

If Congress votes to disqualify the winner from holding office because they determine it to be an insurrection, then they do.

It will be declared unconstitutional and would not be legal for the reasons I posted.

 

[ll74]

Which is a challenge.

A serious challenge involves more. None have been serious challenges

Challenges nonetheless, as I stated.

Who shot up the House of Representatives in 1954? Who planted the bomb in the Senate restroom in the 70s? Answer: The Left.

Which part of that involved certifying the election?

It will be declared unconstitutional and would not be legal for the reasons I posted.

Perhaps, but Democrats have political backing to pursue it... Which was what I said in my original comment. Your thinking is rigid and myopic

 

[PaxNurgle]

Which is a challenge.

Challenges nonetheless, as I stated.

Who shot up the House of Representatives in 1954? Who planted the bomb in the Senate restroom in the 70s? Answer: The Left.


It will be declared unconstitutional and would not be legal for the reasons I posted.

Yet you seemed to have NO PROBLEM with the Republicans who refused to certify Biden's victory. As I recall, you actually were cheering them on for the sidelines. Even after investigation after investigation after investigation turned up no sign of the "Fraud" that Trump kept insisting on. You thought it was totally far and legal for the Republicans to toss out the winner and install Trump.

Just like in Arizona you thought that the state legislature should overturn the results and install the losing candidate, Lake, as governor.

The fact is, Trump DID IN FACT PARTICIPATE IN AN INSURRECTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. He did- without a doubt. to claim otherwise, is like claiming that Bin Laden did not orchestrate the September 11 attacks. The fact that Trump is not only not convicted, but actually remains on the ballot is something that, as a citizen who believes in justice, the Constitution, a civilized society, and the rule of law, I find actually very upsetting. And if you believe in the Constitution and rule of law, you should find it upsetting as well- and should WANT Trump to be declared ineligable to hold office AT THE VERY LEAST. (if not actually imprisoned.)

 

[dkovic77]

You'll have to elect more communists for that to work. Congress can not adjudicate a citizen to be guilty of a crime without a trial:

In the United States, Congress does not have the authority to adjudicate a citizen guilty of a crime without a trial. Let me explain why:

1. Bill of Attainder: Historically, there was a concept called the “bill of attainder”, which allowed Congress to declare a person guilty without granting them a trial. However, this practice is no longer valid. The bill of attainder was used by Henry VIII in 1542 and led to the execution of several prominent figures1.
2. Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides crucial protections for individuals accused of crimes. It states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless indicted by a grand jury. Additionally, no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves, and no private property can be taken without due process of law2.
3. Court Proceedings: Only a court has the authority to hold a trial, evaluate evidence, and determine the merits of a claim or accusation. Congress itself lacks the power to bring criminal charges or initiate a criminal prosecution34.

In summary, Congress cannot unilaterally declare a citizen guilty of a crime without due process, and any such action would violate constitutional principles. Trials are essential to protect individual rights and ensure justice.

Learn more​

1heritage.bafta.org2constitutioncenter.org3heritage.org4mololamken.com5politics.stackexchange.com+4 more

Always know that I'm here to educate you so that you can redeem your wasted youth.

You copy pasta the whole thing? Did you add the emphasis, or was that there too?

So good when these opinion sites will give you exactly what they want you to push on others. Unless… you get paid by the post or by the reply?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It prevents Congress from "finding" Trump guilty of insurrection. That is the point.

The Supreme Court said otherwise last week. Remember they ruled against the state supreme court in Colorado when Colorado declared Trump in violation of the 14th amendment insurrection charge?
"only Congress can determine that"! they said.
Now you're claiming they cannot.

Trying to have it both ways, chum?

 

[YDB95]

It's obvious that both sides are more or less the same party.

Tell me you're a right-winger in denial without saying you are one.

 

[dmallord]

Democracy on the Ballot? Majority of Dems Oppose Certifying a Trump Victory​

By Ben Kew | 6:30 AM on March 12, 2024

The political party claiming that a Donald Trump election victory would mean the end of American democracy has other ideas if the result does not go their way.

According to the latest survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of Democrats surveyed said they would prefer Congress to refuse to certify a Trump victory if it comes to pass:

More here: https://redstate.com/benkew/2024/03...ms-oppose-certifying-a-trump-victory-n2171246

So the Democrats who have been at war with the democratic process since before the 2016 election are still at it and all the time telling us how Republicans are a threat to democracy. You see, everything they accuse the GOP of they are doing exactly that. This is a proven fact pattern.

You messed up the info, mister.

912 people were polled on this survey. Do you believe less than one thousand polled people represent most Democrats? The content says 35% polled said they would oppose Trump if he wins. That's a minority number.

The 55%, a majority, refers to people who would oppose NOT certifying Trump.

You have confounded your statement and probably misread the results. The majority did not support non-certification.

"A national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters say, if Trump wins this year’s election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results, including 20% who would Strongly Support such a move. However, a majority (55%) would oppose Congress members refusing to certify a Trump victory, including 44% who Strongly Oppose the idea. Another 10% are not sure."

You started a thread with bad info - so ... bad. Egg on face time for you, again.

 

[KamiyadoriOWL]

i wonder if the little goebbels get paid for his propaganda....

 

[Bray123]

Trump was not convicted of insurrection. Your post is BS. They were engaging in more election interference and insurrection, when they mounted the phony Russia collusion conspiracy, The phony Mueller investigation, the phony Ukraine quid pro quo phone call investigation, the two phony impeachments, the lies by 51 retired intelligence officials, the phony scripted J6 investigation, the phony Jack Smith prosecution, the now collapsing White house directed Fani Willis prosecution of Trump in Georgia, the phony ballot denial cases against Trump by Democrats, etc, etc.

C'mon. This has been chewed to death already, no 'conviction' is required.

Section 3
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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Rebellion against the Constitution is sufficient. Aid or comfort to those rebelling is sufficient.

Calling prisoners 'hostages' gives them comfort. That is sufficient. Trump has done a whole lot more beyond that.

Anyone in a similar position is also prohibited from being an elector, or serving as Senator or in Congress. Thus Mike Johnson, Boebert, Greene and a whole host of others are prohibited. All those fake electors are prohibited. It would take a vote by Congress to remove that prohibition and no such vote has taken place.