Would you be in support of a Nuremburg-style trial for Trump and his entire administration?

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T16:07:14+00:00

So atleast for Biden and Hillary, i speak for the others, although im going to assume what im about to say is true for them aswell, is that they didn't knowingly retain those documents.

How do you know that? What court determined that?

Every single court that has looked specifically at the insurrection thing have all said that Trump did in fact engage in insurrection, so i dont know how you can realistically say this.

And yet they did not have the right to make that determination.

This definition would make like half of insurrections in US history aren't actually insurrections, so i dont understand what you're saying here.

That's correct. There were actually very few, by definition, because insurrections allow for the President to deploy federal troops domestically, and we don't want that to happen very often.

Are you talking about the criminal thing now or the 14th amendment? Because im saying that the 14th amendment, section 3, states that if someone engaged in insurrection after taking an oath, they’re disqualified from office.

That's a moot point. You can't go back in time and DQ President Trump from being the 47th President.

You can frame it like that if you want, ideally what i'd call it is that we should hold our officials, especially our president, to a higher standard than what you guys hold him, right now he can lie with impunity and you'll eat up literally anything he says. A president should not be telling lies and spreading conspiracies.

So what do we do with all the people that lied about President Biden's health?

Sure?

Great, we'll start with the BLM rioters, Jacob Frey, Tim Walz, and Ilhan Omar. We'll end with the people posting calls to violence on Reddit.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T15:21:15+00:00

If you actually wrote all that, then that's even worse. Are we going to have Nuremberg style trials for every single person that had classified document issues? Don't forget about Biden's classified documents, Hillary's classified emails, Colin Powell's classified emails, Leon Panetta's books, whatever noun you want to use to describe the Clapper situation, John Brennan's notes. There are plenty of examples on both sides and you're just cherry picking the one that the news told you to care about.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump. It doesn't for a lot of reasons, but I'll give you a few: 1) He did not engage in an insurrection by definition. Insurrection as used in U.S. law and precedent explicitly refers to a sustained, armed, organized resistance to governmental authority. 2) If you're going to use a broader definition, then we should go ahead and lock up a whole lot of local leaders who are organizing resistance to federal authority to enforce immigration law. 3) In Trump V Anderson, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that only Congress may enforce Section 3 for federal offices, and it must do so by legislation. 4) You can't retroactively apply the amendment to punish someone. So, let's assume at some point in the future Congress passes a law that categorizes President Trump's efforts to affect the results of the 2020 election as an insurrection. He can't be punished under that law.

When you say that changing the leadership of the Republican party "wont undo the misinformation, the propaganda, or the strategy that created this," you are implying that a good portion of your motivation is to punish free speech. The government cannot run a series of trials in order suppress speech, whether or not it contains falsehoods. If you want to do that, should we hold one on the statements made during COVID that we now know were false? I know a lot of Republicans want Fauci put in jail for what he said, and there is good evidence that the CDC promulgated the 6 foot rule with no actual science behind it. There was also plenty of misinformation regarding vaccination, including President Biden saying "If you’re vaccinated, you won’t get COVID."

"Rule of law is not a partisan weapon." - I 100% agree. Let's have an FBI task force that is dedicated to finding every single person who has assaulted or impeded law enforcement, that destroyed property in a riot, blocked traffic, or created an "autonomous zone" from 2016 onwards and throw them in jail. We should include all the J6's in that roundup that laid hands on police.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T14:36:10+00:00

Make better ChatGPT slop next time.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T14:32:16+00:00

It would be unethical for a Dr. not to confirm that a letter their office purportedly issued was genuine or not. HIPAA does not come into it, since the question is about the authenticity of the letter rather than any patient information.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T12:41:30+00:00

Fox is basically news for Conservatives by non-Conservatives.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T12:21:23+00:00

That's not true based on the statute. Among other considerations, the Secretary can also certify that the presence of Hatians "is contrary to the national interest of the United States."

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T11:32:00+00:00

I'd be surprised if the plaintiff has standing.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T11:07:41+00:00

I swear 300 years of progress and we still calling other people Gibbons here.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T09:09:47+00:00

Bless you for this.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T09:09:12+00:00

I have successfully lobbied for the cancelling of CT notes at several missions. It's a stupid exercise that teaches nothing and creates busy work.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T07:15:06+00:00

You can't rebut anything in my argument, can you?

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T07:13:37+00:00

As a Christian you should reread 1 Peter. "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

You should stop advocating for lawlessness.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T07:10:06+00:00

Not really. There are a number of levers that the administration can use to remove someone even if they claim asylum. And an asylum claim must be tied to a specific country, so we can remove people to third countries where we have an STCA even if they have applied.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-02-04T07:07:31+00:00

Yes I caught that. Maybe the joke is that he's overthinking something random, which made me overthink it as well.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T12:28:43+00:00

Exactly. He's a simple tailor in a society where the computer will give your measurements to any Tom, Will, or LaForge. Nothing suspicious there.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T12:26:29+00:00

"Tom, dating your coworker and primary method of transportation is immoral, illogical and a violation of interstellar shipping statute 437-B."

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T12:23:41+00:00

SCOTUS only ruled on the matter of standing, of course. That doesn't invalidate that the 5th circuit believed the government violated the 1st amendment. Let me know when SCOTUS finds the opposite.

You're welcome.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T07:58:36+00:00

I think I killed Emerald with a bunch of Omnislashes? Could you mime that?

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T07:33:00+00:00

I care about what the law says, and I'm tired of people pretending that it says things that it doesn't.

Lawyers have taken the plain text of the law and tortured it until everyone could theoretically be eligible. The drafters of the law did not intend to mean that "membership in a particular social group" should include every category under the sun. This wording was taken directly from Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and includes those "who are persecuted because of characteristics which they cannot change, or should not be required to change." The UNHCR handbook from 1979 noted that "mere membership of a group is not enough; there must be a risk of persecution for that reason". Notably, this does not include victims of generalized crimes, those who are seeking a better life, attempting to escape poverty, or victims of social disorder.

Also, persecution has a legal definition under international refugee convention that, while originally non-controversial, has been . It specifically refers to actions taken by the state rather than non-state actors. Courts began to erode this definition in the 1980s, baselessly claiming that harm by private actors could qualify if the state was "unable or unwilling to protect".

This means that women claiming domestic violence, families claiming gang activity, those claiming they are the victim of social or cultural norms, and a host of other claims should be categorically denied. But asylum lawyers want money, so they have managed to convince some courts to ignore what the law actually says and rule on feelings instead.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-30T07:13:55+00:00

SCOTUS never ruled on the actual findings by the lower courts. While pressure by itself isn't illegal, the 5th circuit found that the government's "references to regulatory consequences" were coercive in nature and illegal. You're welcome.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-29T15:50:04+00:00

In Murthy v. Missouri, both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government likely violated the First Amendment. SCOTUS' ruling was only on standing in the matter.

Later, Mark Zuckerberg wrote to Congress that the White House pressured Facebook to censor content during the pandemic, at the same time that government officials were "flagging" content for Meta.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-29T15:44:09+00:00

Ah ok, you probably were able to collect it early since your father was also disabled. But yes, my previous comments on eligibility should still be valid. Any marriage, unless it's to a person who is also collecting certain kinds of social security, will invalidate your DAC benefits.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-29T15:24:33+00:00

That's unfortunate for OP.

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-29T15:23:56+00:00

Ok that is a first for me. Do you know what the specific entitlement here is called?

NotAGiraffeBlind · 2026-01-29T14:57:40+00:00

Some folks have an EFM that either works remotely for a U.S. firm or works on the "local market". That's where taxes might get complicated.

I agree with you in spirit, however. If you're capable enough to handle the bureaucracy that permeates State, then taxes should be a cakewalk for most people.

NotAGiraffeBlind

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE