Danderman123

January 6 indictment Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes

Offering free legal services in exchange for a public servant failing to do their duty is bribery. I don't know who, if anyone, is going to indict Trump for bribery.

Proposition 113 will not take effect during the 2024 election. Please don't hijack this topic.

Not exactly, but this is off topic.

"Trump just realized a couple of days before January 6 that Pence wouldn't follow orders and rule in favor of Trump's fake electors. So, they had to find a way to dispose of Pence and let Grassley preside over the certification." Grassley suggests he may preside over Senate debate on Electoral College votes Breaking news for Nauseous, but everyone else knew all about this.

Not exactly, but educating you on this point is beyond the scope of this topic.

Wow. Let's look at reality this way: Do you understand that there are dozens of felony charges pending against the coup plotters, and that some have already pled guilty? Or FOX News hasn't announced that yet? You guys are wasting everyone's time claiming you don't know anything about these widely reported inductments.

Ummm....you do realize that there are dozens of felony charges against the coup planners. I'll let the prosecutors prove it to the juries.

widely reported in the news. What part of it don't you believe?

As the general election nears, there will be an unprecedented number of Republicans rallying against Trump, including many famous ones. IF Biden remains low in the polls, it's not inconceivable that he would replace Harris with a Republican VP nominee as a unity candidate. But, I don't think it will come to that.

The subject is about Trump getting kicked off the Colorado ballot due to his plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Since you don't seem to understand that there was a plot to overturn the election, perhaps this topic isn't for you.

Yep. Trump just realized a couple of days before January 6 that Pence wouldn't follow orders and rule in favor of Trump's fake electors. So, they had to find a way to dispose of Pence and let Grassley preside over the certification.

If you want to see an example here of the insanity, just ask a MAGA type if Trump really weighs 215 lbs, as he claims. They will post 10 replies stating they aren't interested in answering. Because no one gave them talking points telling them how to answer. So, when asked, they just freeze. Because that's how MAGA works - no independent thought. Only parrot what you are told - by Leadership.

The question on the table is your inability to recognize that there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election.

Pretty simple plot, concocted at the last moment: Use the rioters to stop Congress from certifying the Electors; The rioters chase Pence away from the Capitol; Senator Grassley conducts the certification, and throws out Biden electors; The election is overturned, and the House of Representatives decides the winner. Almost worked. BTW, the "Hang Mike Pence" chants were designed to scare away Mike Pence, so he fled to Andrews Air Force base with the Secret Service.

paywalled link, sorry

You doubt there was a plot to overturn the 2020 election? Geez, people have already pled guilty to participating in the plot.

IIRC, Trump was involved in a plot to overturn the 2020 election. Overturning an election = denying people the right to have their votes count. Are you okay with that?

Let's look at the presidential immunity issue. There are several ways the Supremes could rule: Full immunity. That means that presidents are fully immune in all situations. That's a crazy position, since Clarence Thomas does not want Joe Biden to shoot him. Very unlikely the SC will go for full immunity. Immunity for official acts: this may sound good, but what happens if an official act is corrupt? For example, a pardon is an official act, but a president might sell pardons, which is illegal. Immunity for official acts, if they are not corrupt. Again, it sounds good, but isn't workable. If DOJ indicts a president for a corrupt official act, the defense is going to say that the president has immunity. Which means another ruling by the Supreme Court. No immunity. That's a fairly bulletproof position. I don't know how much, if any, immunity the Supremes will grant a president.

So, is it appropriate to try to win elections by pushing to remove candidates from the ballot?

Let me try to explain it this way: the Constitution does not require that a president be convicted by a court of law as a requirement for impeachment. Therefore, Congress doesn't need a reason to impeach a president, it just comes down to votes. This quirk has recently shown to be easily abused. Likewise, the Constitution does not require conviction for sedition before removal from the ballot. Therefore, its possible to remove candidates from the ballot simply because the votes to do so are there.

Gavin Newsom blasts effort to block Trump from California ballot: 'We defeat candidates at the polls'

Managers who have been around for some time often have a book of business, and when they change bars, their customers go with them.

Only if they are really stupid. There are some bargirls who want to be the "girlfriend" of the manager, to accrue some additional benefits and dispensations.

Are you trying to make a parody?