Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats can’t handle people voting for who they want to vote for.

You think votes count? How cute !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

It’s not a political question and the Senate didn’t decide anything. The 14th amendment bars anyone from office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” It doesn’t say anything about a court finding anyone guilty of such engagement. Certainly none of the confederate soldiers the amendment was written about were ever convicted of anything.

[Anonymous]

Pitchbot 🎯 as usual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Refreshing to see conservative legal minds wanting to return the country to sanity.

Luttig is a Deep State Never Trumper. You think a Boeing guy is going to lend is support to a guy pulling America out of wars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

So a decision not to remove (and subsequently bar him from serving again) didn't decide the issue? I thought that the Senate required a 2/3 majority to convict. If he wasn't convicted, doesn't that mean he was acquitted? Based on your logic, Bill Clinton wasn't acquitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

Two different venues, two different questions and two different thresholds. No reason to conflate them unless you are trying to be willingly obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a Trump fan at all, but this move is ridiculously stupid. It only will it get overturned, it reeks of desperation. I rather have Trump just lose in 2024 because people hate him. But to kick him off the ballot is the opposite of democracy.

To disqualify him because of his insurrection is the essence of democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats can’t handle people voting for who they want to vote for.

You think votes count? How cute !

You think they don't?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats can’t handle people voting for who they want to vote for.

Wait, this whole thing is at issue because Trump and his MAGA adherents couldn't accept the results of who people voted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

It’s not a political question and the Senate didn’t decide anything. The 14th amendment bars anyone from office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” It doesn’t say anything about a court finding anyone guilty of such engagement. Certainly none of the confederate soldiers the amendment was written about were ever convicted of anything.

I thought that impeachment (and removal from office) was a political question. High crimes and misdemeanors and all that.... If conviction after impeachment bars a President from holding office, isn't that the same thing as the 14th Amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

So a decision not to remove (and subsequently bar him from serving again) didn't decide the issue? I thought that the Senate required a 2/3 majority to convict. If he wasn't convicted, doesn't that mean he was acquitted? Based on your logic, Bill Clinton wasn't acquitted.

Indeed, Bill Clinton was not acquitted. That isn't the determination of an impeachment proceeding, unless the Senate explicitly passes a resolution as such, which, still isn't in their purview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

Two different venues, two different questions and two different thresholds. No reason to conflate them unless you are trying to be willingly obtuse.

But the same question around insurrection. This isn't as clear as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time a presidential candidate was kept off the ballot by individual states was in 1860, I believe, when Southern states banned Lincoln from the ballot.

Read from it what you want. But this is an interesting development and likely to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats. Turnip is likely Republican candidate by a blowout margin, and is leading Biden in all the polls and with significant leads in most swing states.

Really not understanding why the Democrats didn't do what they should have done, left him alone to moulder in his Florida mansion. But they've turned him into a victim. Oy vey.

This isn't "the democrats" - it is the law and the constitution. Pretty clear in black and white. I thought the GOP was the law and order party?

This is what Turnip posted on twitter on J6: "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

Did you know this? It's easily verifiable on google.

He did that after he told people at the ellipse to head to the capitol. He did that after he told people in December to come to DC on Jan 6, that it would be wild. He did that after, oh never mind.

He did call for people to protest the election that he thought had been stolen. Which people do have a right to do. But it remains there is no evidence, not one shred of evidence, that he plotted and encouraged people to violently overthrow congress on J6. Which falls into the same category as the Russian collusion.

I'll agree he behaved very badly as a spoiled and paranoid loser but that is the extent of what he did on J6.

Seems like this might be one way for the Supreme Court to dodge the 14th Amendment question. If the Supreme Court rules that what Trump said was protected by the 1st Amendment, then how could be be the basis for a charge of insurrection under the 14th Amendment?

DP

Not sure but premise is off.

House Jan 6 committee produced tons of evidence that this horror show was way worse than Trump behaving badly and being a sore loser.

When are we going to stop normalizing his criminal behavior?

It was premeditated

They came close to likely murdering Pence and Pelosi if they had the chance .

People were murdered and extensive property damage at the Capitol.

He did not off his insurrection goon squad for many hours and made sure the national guard was not there to help protect people and property.

His ongoing election fraud lies continue despite so many court cases finding no evidence of any fraud.

When is enough enough?

This all sounds a bit hyperbolic. Regardless, Trump's statements could be construed as protected by the 1st Amendment. Without rehashing many prior threads, there have been plenty of Democrats who alleged the 2016 election was stolen (and the 2000 election for that matter). If Trump's words were protected by the 1st Amendment, or his actions are subject to Presidential immunity, the entire discussion of the 14th Amendment is moot.

Again, there’s nothing in the 14th Amendment that says it’s necessary for him to have been convicted of insurrection.

But if Trump's words are protected by the 1st Amendment, or enjoys Presidential immunity, doesn't that render the 14th Amendment argument moot?

Words and actions are different.

It seems like they're intertwined. The question would be whether Trump's actions alone rose to the level of a 14th Amendment disqualification, assuming that his acquittal by the Senate didn't already decide the issue.

An impeachment proceeding is not criminal. The Senate did not "acquit" Trump. The Senate action simply didn't rise to removal despite a majority vote.

Understood. But a PP keeps saying that you don't have to be convicted of insurrection to be barred by the 14th Amendment. If that's the situation, then the 14th Amendment is a political question, not a legal question. The Senate decided the political question.

Colorado Supreme Court ruled there was sufficient evidence of insurrection to constitutionally bar him.

Understood. So now we have a state deciding an issue that the Senate already decided. Interesting conflict.

Two different venues, two different questions and two different thresholds. No reason to conflate them unless you are trying to be willingly obtuse.

But the same question around insurrection. This isn't as clear as you think.

Seems pretty clear to all of the serious legal pundits, both conservative and liberal. What gives you more expertise than them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats can’t handle people voting for who they want to vote for.

Nah - it would be great for Dems to have Trump on the ticket as he has already lost two popular votes and that was before his violent insurrection, his loaded SCOTUS overturning Roe, his classified docs left in this golf club debacle and 90 felony indictments and rape case finding in favor of the plaintiff.

However, it just seems prudent to have some kind of standard for who can run for the highest office in the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quoted=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't find another thread about this but it is fascinating. My question is if Colorado case agrees that Trump incited an insurrection and refuse to put his no name on the ballot is this a state's right or is it federal. Where can Trump appeal?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/colorado-14th-amendment-trump-day-three-takeaways/index.html

Question? It's totally partisan and they will. Supreme Court will rightfully overturn it but the state of CO will draaaaaagggg it out, hoping they can beat the clock.

Why do you think it’s partisan? If Trump planned the 1/6 events, how is it not violence against the government?

There is no evidence at ALL that Trump planned the 1/6 events. In fact, evidence shows he offered the National Guard when chatter suggested there might be violent parties there.

The judge is highly partisan.

Trump (or whomever is president at the time) is CinC of the DC National Guard. He doesn’t have to offer them up, he can activate them at any time.

I know, facts are stubborn things.

"Alternative" facts are fiction!