Chris Christie is polling at 3%.
He's trying but he is not succeeding.

Often, we are not voting for someone or something, we are voting against it. I won't be voting for a Republican president at this time.

Christie says he won't pardon trump if he is elected President.  "“It’d be really the easiest pardon decision I would ever have to make as president,” Christie said. “You don’t accept responsibility? Too bad. Go to jail.”"

Yet he doesn't want to hold him accountable under the 14th Amendment?


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … ant-trump/

Christie has recently publicly supported the idea that the Constitution shouldn't count- the 14th Amendment, section 3, anyway- and offending provision should be ignored so that the voters can decide what is very simply a Constitutional requirement for office.  Christie has seemingly waffled on the issue of presidents being disqualified on the constitutional requirements that must be met by a would be president.  Age, a natural born citizen, can serve no more than ten years and can be elected no more than twice, and of course, the possession of a character that is good enough to not have been an insurrectionist after swearing an oath to the Constitution. 

The whatchamacallits have attempted to make the qualification of the 14th Amendment moot by claiming the insurrection wasn't an insurrection, it was a riot.  That an insurrection is a riot with political goals seems to have escaped them and calling forth a mob and inciting them certainly counts as participation, though they deny that as well.

It isn't an insurrection when it is your duty as a president to insure the vote is accurate, but all of his challenges failed and we have yet to see all the proof- actually, not even a miniscule amount of proof, that the election was impacted by fraud in 2016 or 2020 or for any of the other elections Republicans scream about.  Failing in court is one thing, but inciting a riot as part of presidential duties?  Nah.

As I said before, I was thinking back and this time I recalled the birther issue.  Do you remember the birther issue?  What was that about?  All of these claims that Obama was born in a foreign country and raised elsewhere?  Does that have something to do with Obama being ineligible to be president on Constitutional grounds?  trump went on about Obama's foreign status for years after Obama produced his long form birth certificate and Christie defended trump- or, at least, lied about what trump did to give trump cover and legitimacy trump never deserved. [1]

Why then should a Constitutional disqualification, which is not a punishment for a crime but a standard of integrity and trust that the Constitution demands to hold office, must be set aside for the will of the voters?  Does anyone think for the blink of an eye that trump and rabid Republicans would have refused to stop an ineligible black man from being on the ballot for the presidency?  Would they have refrained for an instant from going to court to have him removed, or would the step aside under the vague hope that the American electorate would reject a black man?  Then did they accept Obama once he won the office because that was the will of the people?  Or was trump among the chorus of haters that said, "Obama is not my president!"

If the requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen was sufficient to use to attempt to disenfranchise a person who is a natural born citizen (though we know the birther issue was just a smoke screen because it wasn't popular then to simply admit to being a racist), then why reject the insurrection clause in favor of a vote?  Is it because Republicans have no shame?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/politics … index.html

In any event, knocking  the cult head off the nomination would be satisfying...for a minute. The sad reality is that there are dozens of mini dickhead donnies out there waiting to inherit the devotion of the willingly blind and proudly stupid.

Chris Chrisie is withdrawing from the Presidential race.

the Hell with Chris Christie taking down the big dump.  According to the Trump people the president can legally have rivals killed

Trumps attorney says it's OK for a president to assassinate rivals!
Get to it Joe!!!

Trump Lawyer Claims Presidential Immunity Covers Having Rivals Assassinated
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … 234942963/
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … -immunity/
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -6-vpx.cnn

I can't help being reminded of Nixon's "it's not illegal if the President does it" claim.

Which, by the way, led to the Supreme Court's famous "no one is above the law" ruling...

"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof … ing%20law.

trump's lawyers should be sanctioned big time.  There is no merit to their claims.  Their arguments in court were absurd.  This has nothing to do with immunity and everything to do with delaying the trial of the psychotic miscreant.  Bill Cosby sat in jail for years because of bad faith on the part of the DA and a bad ruling by the judge. (Not that I do not believe he was innocent.)  Cosby and the rest of us have to appeal after the verdict.  Why does trump get to do it before the verdict. 

In the meantime we get tidbit after morsal about trump's actions regarding the insurrection- more this week on how he refused to stop the violence and relished in the events.  Also, that it was trump himself that sent the tweet claiming Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done, inflaming the fascist rioters all the more.  This guy should be within a hundred miles of DC- ever again.