Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1437554)	2/5/2024 4:42:11 PM
From: Bill	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576612

The constitution is very clear about the rights of every accused person. In particular, the framers went out of their way to define treason and the proof needed for conviction (Article III, Sec 3). Both Article 3 and the 14th Amendment explicitly give Congress the power to enforce the provisions and declare punishment. A citizen, like Ms. Anderson, filing a civil suit alleging that someone committed insurrection does not constitute proof, nor does it provide the constitutional protections any accused person is due.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1437554)	2/5/2024 5:11:12 PM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz miraje Respond to of 1576612

Well, I have read the Trump legal team's petition to the supreme court and didn't see a word about a "wItCh hUnT". The arguments hit on every area where they believe the Colorado court erred. Additionally, they make the case for a 50 state decision, which is the direct opposite of your statement about 50 standards defined by 50 states. That team made a very strong case based on the law and I would be surprised if they don't win this appeal decidedly.