There was no possible way there was election fraud in 2020.
That only happened in 2016 when Trump won.

yeah....

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 01-08-2021).]

"Twitter permanently suspends President Donald Trump"

quote "After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence," Twitter's official "Safety" account tweeted.

Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny for NBC News; January 8, 2021.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tec...onald-trump-n1253588

One of the most iconic images of the Trump presidency. One for the history books.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I agree it should die a natural death, but I don't think it's about throwing crap at DJT. I think it's about the health of the nation. You can take a stance that we're so close that we should just get through it (my preference), or you can take a stance that it's dangerous to allow a President to overhaul an election on no more than allegations (which is certainly what DJT tried to do), and that ignoring it just leaves the door open for the future. I personally don't think it's that dire, and I trust our process, but that's how I see the two sides of it.

Too dangerous to allow what? It's a done deal.

It's my understanding that several Freedom loving militia groups plan on "visiting" the DC area on 20 Jan.
Yeah, let's impeach President Trump and fuel that fire.

Rams

Some legal scholars say that it would be lawful and not even without precedent if the Senate convened later this year to conduct a trial of former President Donald J. Trump. Even after he's no longer the President.

"Believe it or not."
https://www.nbcnews.com/pol...en-after-he-n1253544

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Some legal scholars say that it would be lawful and not even without precedent if the Senate convened later this year to conduct a trial of former President Donald J. Trump. Even after he's no longer the President.

Delusions born of hate.

TWO THIRDS

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-08-2021).]

I said that there are legal scholars who think it's discussible, within the framework of Constitutional law.

I didn't say that it was certain to happen, or that there would be a two-thirds majority of the Senate willing to convict what would be the former President Trump on new charges of impeachment.

It's not a long news report, for anyone who wants to read or dispute it.

No "delusions born of hate" on my part. Although that, perhaps, was not directed towards me. Probably wasn't directed towards me. For a fleeting moment I thought it might be directed towards me, but I soon came to the conclusion that it wasn't directed towards me; but rather, towards the legal scholars as described in the news report.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-08-2021).]

Well, I'm glad we got that worked out. It feels like we've made real progress here tonight.

quote Originally posted by sourmash: Well, I'm glad we got that worked out. It feels like we've made real progress here tonight.

That thar's funny, don't care who U R.

Rams

"SedCon"

Seditious Conspiracy or "SedCon" as I fully expect it's most commonly and informally articulated by lawyers who are well versed in the nexus between law and national security. Because "SedCon" rolls off the tongue in a way that I cannot imagine for "Incitement of Insurrection." How does that work out? "InRect"..? I like "SedCon" so much better, and so does Georgia State University College of Law professor Clark D. Cunningham, although his reasons are infinitely more grounded in the knowledge of Law than my own.

"Democrats Are Pursuing the Wrong Impeachment Charges Against President Trump"

quote It would be better to make a case around provable facts rather than a matter of judgment.

Clark D. Cunningham for Politico Magazine; January 10, 2021.
https://www.politico.com/ne...us-conspiracy-456937

Read-o-Meter sez ... 6 minutes.