jrdaustin said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

"Mr.Trump is constitutionally disqualified under Sec. 3 of 14th Am from taking the oath as president on 1/20/25 unless 2/3 of both houses lift the disqualification”
Laurence Tribe
Harvard Legal scholar

— Don Lawrence (@DonLawr86874954) December 21, 2024

I don't need to be a constitutional scholar to see massive coping and seething when I see it. Obscure legal theories exist for everything, I'm sure, but that doesn't make them correct.

---

Oh, so there's a conviction that I missed?

Either that, or this guy is a putz.

And Harvard continues to burn its reputation into the ground.

---

Burn, baby burn! Nothing but a communist nest anyway...like academia pretty much everywhere.

This dude is nuts, and seems totally convinced this is going to happen.

Waffledynamics said:

---

"Mr.Trump is constitutionally disqualified under Sec. 3 of 14th Am from taking the oath as president on 1/20/25 unless 2/3 of both houses lift the disqualification”
Laurence Tribe
Harvard Legal scholar

— Don Lawrence (@DonLawr86874954) December 21, 2024

I don't need to be a constitutional scholar to see massive coping and seething when I see it. Obscure legal theories exist for everything, I'm sure, but that doesn't make them correct.

---

And guess what? Given their abuse of power to date, if they do seek to enforce it anyway and disqualify him, content with hims assuming power as something whatever.

The last 2 Democrat presidents were illegitimate therefore there is precedence to sit a Republican president who is "disqualified" for the position.

Didn't SCOTUS basically say congress would need to either define or enforce a disqualification?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Didn't SCOTUS basically say congress would need to either define or enforce a disqualification?

---

Yes

BTKAG97 said:

---

The last 2 Democrat presidents were illegitimate therefore there is precedence to sit a Republican president who is "disqualified" for the position.

---

Biden definitely, but do you really doubt Obama's wins? (I guess some of 2012 districts looks hinky, but margin seems safe anyway)

Yale Harvard now pumping out the Stacy Abrams of the US.

titan said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

The last 2 Democrat presidents were illegitimate therefore there is precedence to sit a Republican president who is "disqualified" for the position.

---

Biden definitely, but do you really doubt Obama's wins? (I guess some of 2012 districts looks hinky, but margin seems safe anyway)

---

That's just it. Can we even be sure about 2012?

Remember after 2008 and the stories of the vaunted Obama digital database? A database that he did not share with anyone else. Were those real or phantom voters? The mastermind of that digital database was the one who brought Zuckbucks into 2020 with specialized targeting for specific counties in specific swing states...all based on Plouffe's granular database that no one else had access to, before the election.

FTR: I have had my doubts about the results in 2004, too.

Joe Biden, the President who was never there...

Legally, everything Biden signed should be thrown out because he was non compos mentis since before (and since) he was elected in 2020.

The compos mentis Biden was never there in the White House these last four years. Biden was/is the man who wasn't there, who we all wish would go away.

"Yesterday upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away! ...."

What if say..he went to Dartmouth or Cornell.. you know lower tiered IVY..

Sorry I missed the part about Trump served in the Confederate army.

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

The last 2 Democrat presidents were illegitimate therefore there is precedence to sit a Republican president who is "disqualified" for the position.

---

Biden definitely, but do you really doubt Obama's wins? (I guess some of 2012 districts looks hinky, but margin seems safe anyway)

---

That's just it. Can we even be sure about 2012?

Remember after 2008 and the stories of the vaunted Obama digital database? A database that he did not share with anyone else. Were those real or phantom voters? The mastermind of that digital database was the one who brought Zuckbucks into 2020 with specialized targeting for specific counties in specific swing states...all based on Plouffe's granular database that no one else had access to, before the election.

FTR: I have had my doubts about the results in 2004, too.

---

Oh, I know. You converted me on that about Bush's victory and that it may have been Kerry after all. At least the possibility.

Interesting about the Obama digital database and early preview of Zuckbucks --- it just didn't seem that close an election but maybe it was. What most recall is "Project Orca" beaching (pun intended) and a memorable tirade against the Romney campaign's incompetence.

titan said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

The last 2 Democrat presidents were illegitimate therefore there is precedence to sit a Republican president who is "disqualified" for the position.

---

Biden definitely, but do you really doubt Obama's wins? (I guess some of 2012 districts looks hinky, but margin seems safe anyway)

---

No, that was a joke in regards to his "Natural Born Citizenship" status.

ADDED: But I'll also go with what Mrs Hawg stated.

Quote:

---

Oh, I know. You converted me on that about Bush's victory and that it may have been Kerry after all. At least the possibility.

Interesting about the Obama digital database and early preview of Zuckbucks --- it just didn't seem that close an election but maybe it was. What most recall is "Project Orca" beaching (pun intended) and a memorable tirade against the Romney campaign's incompetence.

---

Point remaining is that without transparency and fast vote counting, there is no way to know if the claimed results are accurate or not.

My advice is that Jay Valentine be handed enough money to run both his election roll review and the NGO money tracing operations using his fractal technology.

(Developed specifically for ebay to identify fake accounts to clean it up from fraud.)

Amend HAVA to put an enforcement mechanism in for states not passing the minimum requirements for certification. Vastly reform the EAC and CISA division that handles elections. No more revolving doors for electronic voting companies and their employees and execs in effect checking their own work.

Ideally, I would like to see a special federal court be created just for election contests with judges who are steeped in computer literacy. Think like patent courts.

One thing I saw repeatedly from hearings after 2020 and then 2022 midterms was that the judges had no idea how to interpret the expert testimony and were completely lost. Only reason I could follow it was because I had done such a deep dive on how electronic voting systems work, their vulnerabilities to bad actors and so forth.
One election court per Circuit, not only in DC, as the federal bench in DC mostly sucks.

Would also help if there was an entire CLE program to teach the lawyers handling those types of cases understand the lingo and how to break it down for laypeople.

I'll see your Lawrence Tribe and raise you one Jonathan Turley.

What absolute bull**** that guy's an idiot.

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Tribe is a moron

---

Agree. I do remember having to read one of the horn books he authored on Con law, back before he went bozo to the left.

And like all lawyers, he can argue both sides but he argues both sides solely based upon his agenda not a legal analysis.

The 14th Amendment argument has always been bogus as applicable to Trump and Jan 6th.

---

Horn books and TexJur got me through.

Gilbert's for me.

The question is - How many Republicans in the House hate Trump? If there is ONE, that might be enough to object to the electors based on the 14th amendment and have it hold up.

The dems were always going to do this if they could. I'm still not positive they can't. The margins are too thin.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

The question is - How many Republicans in the House hate Trump? If there is ONE, that might be enough to object to the electors based on the 14th amendment and have it hold up.

The dems were always going to do this if they could. I'm still not positive they can't. The margins are too thin.

---

Not anymore. Dems amended the ECA requiring one fifth of each chamber to entertain any objections.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

What if say..he went to Dartmouth or Cornell.. you know lower tiered IVY..

---

aggiehawg said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

The question is - How many Republicans in the House hate Trump? If there is ONE, that might be enough to object to the electors based on the 14th amendment and have it hold up.

The dems were always going to do this if they could. I'm still not positive they can't. The margins are too thin.

---

Not anymore. Dems amended the ECA requiring one fifth of each chamber to entertain any objections.

---

Oh that won't be a problem. In either chamber. Every dem would sign on to the objection if needed. The ONE defection I am referring to is that the republicans only have a one seat majority when they vote on the objection. The democrats will vote in lock step, so only one republican will be needed to validate the objection. Will the Senate save him? Maybe - his fate may lie in the hands of Murkowski and Collins.

I doubt the dems can pull it off, but like I said, I'm not positive.

Tribe needs stuffed in a locker with Fauci.

Marxist Harvard trash

This is an insurrection.


This is criminal trespass..

I hope this clears things up..

Waffledynamics said:

---

"Mr.Trump is constitutionally disqualified under Sec. 3 of 14th Am from taking the oath as president on 1/20/25 unless 2/3 of both houses lift the disqualification”
Laurence Tribe
Harvard Legal scholar

— Don Lawrence (@DonLawr86874954) December 21, 2024

I don't need to be a constitutional scholar to see massive coping and seething when I see it. Obscure legal theories exist for everything, I'm sure, but that doesn't make them correct.

---

So, a supposed "academic" has circumvented the SC in determining the Constitution..

All hail academia.

He's the most consequential Supreme Court scholar of the last 40 years. He has driven more constitutional decisions than any other living person. But his theories really only apply with a liberal court, like the one we had for all but the last few years.

He's a brilliant guy but as a conservative his class was awful. With a conservative court he's basically without any authority.