It's strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the capitol (which itself is just a component of his overall objective to illegally overturn the election results) was his intention all along
trafficnab
joined 1 year ago
They argue that it doesn't remove anyone's rights, it's a constitutionally mandated eligibility requirement, no different from needing to be over 35 or US born
Well, if it wasn't his intent, he sure did sit watching it on TV until it was clear that the US government would not be overthrown, instead of swiftly taking action like any other president would when congress is under attack
We had to rely on Pence, hiding in the capitol basement, to actually attempt to manage this thing
They must still have the 8 to 14 artillery pieces and the 1 gatling gun tucked away somewhere
So you're saying, with the F-16s sent away, now is Maui's time to strike back
Only HTTP, they intercept any unencrypted page in flight and inject a giant banner at the top that won't go away until you acknowledge it, no local application required
This is 100% legal in the US, and in fact, some small regional ISPs actually made money injecting actual ads into webpages, literal spyware
If they had instead sent those F-16s to the people of Maui they could have dropped napalm to create a firebreak ahead of the fire, saving hundreds of lives
That shit would get thrown in a metal cage and treated as a radioactive DMZ network-wise if I was forced to use it
My ISP is the dumb pipe my internet comes from, it's bad enough that they inject bandwidth cap warnings into the raw HTML of webpages like some sort of adware virus, they can stay the fuck out of my local network
I suppose it would ultimately be up to the supreme court to define what exactly that eligibility requirement (that you basically have to have never tried to overthrow the government) as written in the constitution means, but that doesn't actually immediately involve a conviction of Trump for anything (as "being under the age of 35" doesn't require some sort of criminal conviction)
In the hypothetical scenario, someone would try to remove him from the ballot, and the supreme court would either uphold or reject that based on their interpretation of the language of the amendment