There is no i**********n on the books !
However , there is S*******s conspiracy.
Many have already been convicted of this .
The top 5 of the goatkeepers, Rhodes got 18 years and he wasn’t even there.
And the top four of the proud joys .
If you should take up arms against this country, you forfeit all of your rights that this country has provided for you .
You can’t complain the government you were trying to o*******w isn’t protecting you.
Why should it.
You should instead be hanged by the neck until dead .
And then thrown out into a ditch !

There is no i**********n on the books !
However , there is S*******s conspiracy.
Many have already been convicted of this .
The top 5 of the goatkeepers, Rhodes got 18 years and he wasn’t even there.
And the top four of the proud joys .
If you should take up arms against this country, you forfeit all of your rights that this country has provided for you .
You can’t complain the government you were trying to o*******w isn’t protecting you.
Why should it.
You should instead be hanged by the neck until dead .
And then thrown out into a ditch !

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

14th Amendment section 4 has to do with paying the national debt.

Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing i**********n or r*******n, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of i**********n or r*******n against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any s***e; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Do you mean Section 3? You would still be wrong. It says NOTHING about the President or merely the indictment of the President to hold office if indicted of a crime.


Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or e*****r of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in i**********n or r*******n against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a v**e of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Tucker ?
Tucker only showed 4 minutes of the
4500 minutes of video available.
Mostly strolling in the park .
Instead of an armed i**********n.
That , and Tucker is a professed Liar .
Guilty as Fsux Nouse
Why were they at the Capital at that moment . Their guilt is obvious just for the timing.
They broke into a government building.
During a legal gathering to Certify
E*******l V**es .
What was their purpose ?
To say 2/3rds did nothing is incorrect.
They were there as a part of the force to o*******w an e******n.
Guilty .
Hang them All .
If we let them out of jail ,
They’ll only do it again .
Hang ‘Em !
And all connected . Especially those in congress today who are still working at having a c**p . Hang them too .
Jordan and McCarthy were involved.
Mrs Clarence Thomas was involved .
Too many to mention .
Hang them all !!!!
Then , we won’t have to listen to the whiney little b***hes !

ed
Convicted of what? You can be indicted for anything, whether it happened or not.
The court decided in Trumps favor and made the stripper pay him $700,000 reimburshment for his expenses, because she lied.
Now Carroll lied about the rape charge but the crooked judge said he was still guilty of assault when there was no evidence, that it happened. 30 years ago, in a department store, with probably a lot of people, no cries for help, no police report filed,., don't even remember what year, wrote a book, put it in the book, thought it would help the sale. Trump is appealing and I hope he wins, if he has an honest judge, he will, because there is no evidence it ever happened. Needs to sue her and the judge for a few million
What convicted felon are you talking about? Biden has not been tried yet. You will have to wait on that.

Nope.
The presumption of innocence applies to the courtroom. Within the courtroom you are innocent until proven guilty .
The presumption of innocence does not apply to public opinion.
Once charged , you become the accused .


This explains it better;

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean a suspect is innocent, leading Sydney barrister warns
This article is more than 1 year old
Bret Walker SC, who represented George Pell and Christian Porter, cautions against ‘magical thinking’
Paul Karp
@Paul_Karp
Tue 15 Jun 2021 22.50 EDT
The high-profile barrister Bret Walker SC has warned that the presumption of innocence doctrine should not be misunderstood to mean that a person is in fact innocent.

Walker told the Rule of Law Education Centre’s Presumption of Guilt conference on Tuesday it would be “terrible” if the presumption of innocence meant everyone was compelled to regard an accused person as innocent until they were convicted.

The barrister said the concept meant instead that the prosecution had “to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused”. He labelled the view that a person was necessarily innocent until they were convicted as a form of “magical thinking”.

Walker is an eminent senior counsel and former independent national security legislation monitor who successfully represented George Pell in his appeal to the high court. He also represented the former attorney general Christian Porter in his defamation case against the ABC, which was discontinued by agreement.

In February the ABC reported that an unnamed cabinet minister had been accused in a dossier sent to Scott Morrison of a sexual assault in 1988 when he was 17 and the alleged victim was 16. Porter then identified himself as the minister, and strenuously denied the allegation.

Quietly and confidently, George Pell's barrister tried to unravel the prosecution's case
David Marr
Read more
In March the prime minister declared that Porter was an “innocent man under our law” because he had never been charged with or convicted of sexual assault.

Police had begun an investigation but concluded there was “insufficient admissible evidence” to continue after the complainant withdrew from the process, then took her life.

On Tuesday Walker said that “unfortunately both politically and socially in everyday language people – many of them lawyers … speak of the presumption of innocence as if it means somehow, that at the time of speaking – that is before an accused has been convicted – the person actually is innocent or, if you like … that the person is not guilty”.

“If that simply means he or she hasn’t yet had pronounced a verdict of guilty and thereafter a conviction entered – so much is true but trivial.”

Walker said when prosecutors signed indictments they were declaring they believed there was enough evidence to allege the commission of an offence, notwithstanding the accused’s presumption of innocence.

But Walker said it would be a “terrible thing if we thought that everybody was thereby compelled to regard them as innocent”.

“The prosecutor mustn’t – that would be appalling. I hope the police who investigate and put the brief together … don’t think so either, that would be appalling.

“In short, the presumption of innocence involves an open mind about the outcome of a trial but not the magical thinking that says until a person is convicted they were innocent, they should never have been tried.

“Guilt of a crime … is only ever of conduct which was criminal at the time it was committed – and you’ve been guilty, as a matter of English law, since you’ve committed the offence.”

Walker said “presumption of innocence” should be “banished from discourse concerning people who are the objects of criminal process”.

“They are presumed innocent, it doesn’t mean they are innocent.”

In May the Rule of Law Education Centre incorrectly billed Porter as a speaker at the conference, which promises to “examine recent challenges to this doctrine [the presumption of innocence] and the threat this poses to the Australian concept of a ‘fair go’”.

A spokesman for Porter told Guardian Australia that he “hadn’t actually accepted” an invitation and organisers had “got ahead of themselves”.

In the event description organisers claim the “presumption of guilt” is a “dangerous new doctrine on the rise … in an era where public policy is frequently influenced by the latest frenzy on social media”.

The centre said the presumption of innocence should be a bulwark “not just against over-mighty governments, but against those who would side-step the normal law and impugn people who have done nothing wrong”.

It promised the conference would “examine the consequences of allowing this doctrine to be eroded by confining it to the formal processes of criminal justice”.

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against r****m and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

******