re: Trump Pardons Tina Peters

quote:

---

When some states are behaving like Somalia and N Korea? Yep

---

Thanks, Dex for the honesty. I wish others would just say that rather than trying to distort what the Constitution says.

Why should I care if Trump infringes on a corrupt state that doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear but these states have enacted laws and restrictions on firearms. Where's your outage for the Constitution on that?

quote:

---

Where's your outage for the Constitution on that?

---

Start a thread about that and I will agree with you.

quote:

---

Why should I care if Trump infringes on a corrupt state that doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear but these states have enacted laws and restrictions on firearms. Where's your outage for the Constitution on that?

---

Has Trump ever advocated laws violative of the 2nd Amendment?

quote:

---

Why should I care if Trump infringes on a corrupt state that doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear but these states have enacted laws and restrictions on firearms. Where's your outage for the Constitution on that?

---

Trump: ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’

MUH what about democrats?

MAGA purports to be better than the filthy democrats but the second MAGA does something retarded like this they always run to mUh DeMoCraTs REEEE!!!

Your seething does not address the question. Why are you simping for a convicted criminal? Take off the MAGA glasses and put down the kool aid.

quote:

---

Why are you simping for a convicted criminal? Take off the MAGA glasses and put down the kool aid.

---

This isn't even like a Trump scenario where it was a novel theory or bending of a vague statute.

Tina Peters clearly broke the law. She had no defense, and there are multiple acts showing intent and a plan to break the law, and that she knew she was breaking the law.

She ultimately gave sensitive voter data to an unauthorized third party using fraudulently-obtained identification. She then gave the information to ANOTHER unauthorized third party, who posted the information and...checks notes....it revealed no illegal or nefarious activity.

There are procedures to be a whistleblower. She followed none of them.

There are procedures to report illegal activity. She followed none of them.

Her claims that there was an exigency because the data was at risk were proven to be fantasies.

The actual data revealed nothing and disputed the claims of Pillow Man's agents.

Again, you have to be seriously retarded to jump into this debate and defend Tina Peters.

quote:

---

It would seem that the “corrupt?) vote in one State being allowed to directly affect the basic Constitutionally guaranteed Rights in others would be Standing sufficient to at least litigate and hear the relevant evidence therein?

---

What?

Somebody explain the incorporation doctrine to this man.

quote:

---

If one State chooses to deep six said Evidence, then that is not mere Obstruction but given the overall political and basic ideological (“fundamental change “) then it becomes far more pernicious and dangerous re Rule of Law. Constitutional version.

---

\
You're creating fantasies out of fantasies to project a constitutional violation that doesn't even exist.

quote:

---

When people lose faith in a Just Law, the Law loses credibility and becomes tyrannical.

---

Now you're using the above straw man fantasy to justify breaking the law

You sound like Tina Peters so much and you don't even realize it

quote:

---

Somebody explain the incorporation doctrine to this man. “(Quote SFP).

I do not understand that, SF.

---

Federal rights (like the ones in the Bill of Rights) did not initially apply to the states. They had to be incorporated, which largely began after the 14th Amendment was passed. Some still haven't been incorporated.

quote:

---

But I do realize that if a ‘to be determined by an honest and comprehensive’ “truth and the whole truth “ litigation in full public view is the very moral basis upon the respect of the principle of Rule of Law exists.

---

And Tina Peters had a public trial. It did not go well for her.

quote:

---

. To the degree that that said truth is hidden, via lawyerly, legalistic ’word salad’, the whole faith in the system collapses and we with it.

---

None of that applies to Tina Peters and her clearly illegal behavior. Again, it was all out in the open.

quote:

---

The Supreme Court should hear that woman’s evidence.

---

Why?

It's a state crime that was tried in state court and she's using her rights to appeal in that state court system.

The Supreme Court doesn't even hear "evidence" as its an appellate court and not a trial court.

Come on SF, Trump had trials too. I’m not arguing whether the woman is guilty of said ‘crime’, I’m arguing for a FULL exposition of the Evidence of vote tampering which lies underneath her choice to risk conviction because of her dedication to having the WHOLE TRUTH aired.

Do you serve Truth, or the Law? One must choose their basic “First Principle “. That is the bottom line. When Law - in whatever form- does not serve Truth, is said Law just, virtuous or even practical? Will, should or can it stand as a a basic civil principle for societal survival and prosperity?

I think not, as our agreement and ‘implied social contract “ deteriorates by the day. The proof is always in the pudding.