re: Jamie Raskin: No "Criminal Conviction" Needed To Bar Trump Via 14th Amendment

They’re absolutely terrified at the prospect of this man getting back into the WH.

Accept two state Supreme courts have already said he is full of shut

quote:

---

They’re absolutely terrified at the prospect of this man getting back into the WH.

---

Well if you think about it, they should be

After arranging and forcing a coup d-etat as Raskin himself played significant roles, they are scrambling for any kind of grasp they can,

oh but I forgot, Drumpf will be so easy to defeat they WANT HIM TO BE THE CANDIDATE

Raskin will have his place in history books as the treacherous persecutor and seditious traitor he absolutely is...

as will many other of the murky seditious usurpers

quote:

---

He continued, “I think what we need is a judicial determination of whether or not an impeachment by the House, 57 to 43 vote in the Senate, enough to establish as a civil proposition that he’s engaged in insurrection or whether you need additional adjudicated fact finding by the court. But nowhere does it say that you need to have a criminal conviction in order to make section three of the 14th Amendment apply.”

---

The weasel words of a traitor EVEN WITHOUT ANY "ADDITIONAL ADJUDICATED FACT".

Scumbag

quote:

---

Raskin is a piece of shite.

The cancer should have taken him...

---

Even cancer cannot tolerate Raskin he is so foul.

quote:

---

Without a conviction there is no guilt under the Constitution: innocent until proven guilty.

---

We're way past that... we're at the "Dems decide who can run and find some reason to justify it later" stage of the game

These fricking people....smh
At the very least, censoring the Hunter Biden laptop information from the public was election interference! There is no question that happened.

quote:

---

And guess what. If the people want Putin, we will fricking get Putin. It’s about the people. Not the ruling class.

---

I find bringing up Putin hilarious because he is effectively trying to bring up the Obama birth certificate mess and say “Well, he ran so he was obviously qualified.”

quote:

---

So, when people say, it is undemocratic what the voters decide, that’s like saying, let Vladimir Putin run for president, even though he’s not a U.S. citizen because it would be undemocratic to deny that choice to the voters. The Constitution has already made that judgment.”

---

This is a hilariously horrible take that liberal NPC voters will hilariously latch onto and run with as a new hilariously false talking point.

I have posted in other threads and it is simple and undeniable

While the constitution does not specifically mention insurrection, the federal government defines it as a crime under federal law

As such, absent a charge and conviction there can be not "its insurrection because I say so". It is a federal criminal standard "beyond all doubt" required