Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Huh? No. That's a fake fact.

Is that similar to a "true lie"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

The delays come from the hidden documents, lack of cooperation and endless motions and appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

People don’t remember it because you made it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

Really? What judge or jury acquitted him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

People don’t remember it because you made it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

That article didn’t seem to reference the Colorado judicial system. Did I miss it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

The delays come from the hidden documents, lack of cooperation and endless motions and appeals.

Of course it did. He's trying to drag this out for just that reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

The delays come from the hidden documents, lack of cooperation and endless motions and appeals.

+1 DOJ seized Rudy Giuliani's phone in April 2021. Everyone has been fighting everything and that’s why it’s taken so long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

It’s pretty relevant when all the Trump fans are wailing about democracy and complaining about due process. Trump wasn’t interested in any of that for his rivals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

It’s pretty relevant when all the Trump fans are wailing about democracy and complaining about due process. Trump wasn’t interested in any of that for his rivals.

Still irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

You are conflating two completely differnent things. Trump was impeached for his January 6 contributions by the House of Representatives. The impeachment then goes to the Senate for trial. But this is a congressional trial, not a judicial trial. In the Congressional trial, the only choices by the Senate are 2/3 majority voting to remove from office or not. But regardless of the outcome, that is only a Congressional trial for consideration of removal from office.

The trial for his insurrection has not gone to trial yet. This is what Jack Smith is currently trying to bring to trial, but Trump and his lawyers keep obstructing and delaying. Their goal is to delay this trial until after the November 2024 election. He has not been acquitted of that. He hasn't even been to trial due to all the legal maneuverings. In the most recent actions, Trump attempted to claim presidential immunity for his actions. The federal court rejected his claim of immunity and he appealed. In order to keep the trial on it's targeted March deadline, Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to consider reviewing the presidential immunity claim and ruling on that, so that the trudge through the appellate court, then verdict, to then be appealed to the SCOTUS will not derail or delay the March target trial schedule. Trump is doing everything he and his lawyers possibly can to derail and delay the start of his trial.

But he has not gone on trial for insurrection yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

You are conflating two completely differnent things. Trump was impeached for his January 6 contributions by the House of Representatives. The impeachment then goes to the Senate for trial. But this is a congressional trial, not a judicial trial. In the Congressional trial, the only choices by the Senate are 2/3 majority voting to remove from office or not. But regardless of the outcome, that is only a Congressional trial for consideration of removal from office.

The trial for his insurrection has not gone to trial yet. This is what Jack Smith is currently trying to bring to trial, but Trump and his lawyers keep obstructing and delaying. Their goal is to delay this trial until after the November 2024 election. He has not been acquitted of that. He hasn't even been to trial due to all the legal maneuverings. In the most recent actions, Trump attempted to claim presidential immunity for his actions. The federal court rejected his claim of immunity and he appealed. In order to keep the trial on it's targeted March deadline, Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to consider reviewing the presidential immunity claim and ruling on that, so that the trudge through the appellate court, then verdict, to then be appealed to the SCOTUS will not derail or delay the March target trial schedule. Trump is doing everything he and his lawyers possibly can to derail and delay the start of his trial.

But he has not gone on trial for insurrection yet.

There is as a court case. In Colorado. He lost. He’s an insurrectionist, a traitor to his country and his oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As Biden collapses in the polls, and Trump rises, Democrats are going to resort to increasingly desperate -- and anti-democratic -- means to ensure Trump can't run, all while they insist that only they are the Guardians of Democracy.

This is playing with real fire!

Biden may be collapsing, but he still polls ahead of Trump for "likely voters" -so, please keep going with your flawed premise. Fact is, Trump lead an insurrection and coup attempt to keep his job. He failed, just like he has failed at everything else in life. He is a crook and cheat and as a PP posted, probably the single most corrupt "politician" in the history of our Republic.

+1 Also he’s a fan of taking rivals off the ballot from way back.

Irrelevant.

It’s pretty relevant when all the Trump fans are wailing about democracy and complaining about due process. Trump wasn’t interested in any of that for his rivals.

The problem is MAGA wants to steamroll everything and everyone to get what they want. They don’t care about anything but winning. They don’t care about how they win. They just want TFG in the WH. You’re arguing logic with toddlers. They’ll scream until they get what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay so when the Supreme Court reverses this because it violates due process are progs going to riot? It will be reversed

You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court would have to upend a lot of due process law to accomplish that. Even if you regard the ability to seek office as a property or liberty right, usually all due process requires is notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a neutral decision-maker. He got all that in the five day trial where he was represented by counsel, presented evidence, and had his case decided by a member of the judiciary.

+1. Without getting into whether I agree, I expect this to get reversed, but it'll be on political question grounds, not due process.

+1 I’m sure it will be reversed because enough of them will want to reverse it. Curious about how they justify getting there, though.

I think it'll be stayed, but not reversed, on presumed innocence grounds because he hasn't been convicted yet.

Guilt, innocence, and presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it. This is not a criminal proceeding. How often does that have to get said before it sinks in?

If you're under 35, a court can still keep you off the ballot even if you're not convicted of being under 35. It's a question of fact for the court to determine; just like whether you've engaged in insurrection. Confederate officers were excluded from office even though they were never convicted of anything.

Confederate officers were part of an organized and defined insurrectionist entity. They had a uniform and got a paycheck. There was no plausible question of whether they were involved. Membership had its consequences as it were.

While Trump certainly committed insurrection it was a different sort of insurrection. The massive delay in both his charges and his proceedings also has consequences unfortunately. But more importantly it provides an excuse.

I think it is clear that a President is eligible under the clause so they aren't going to overturn it but they'll throw it out on a technicality (lack of conviction).

Trump was acquitted on the insurrection charge. When are people going to remember this?

You are conflating two completely differnent things. Trump was impeached for his January 6 contributions by the House of Representatives. The impeachment then goes to the Senate for trial. But this is a congressional trial, not a judicial trial. In the Congressional trial, the only choices by the Senate are 2/3 majority voting to remove from office or not. But regardless of the outcome, that is only a Congressional trial for consideration of removal from office.

The trial for his insurrection has not gone to trial yet. This is what Jack Smith is currently trying to bring to trial, but Trump and his lawyers keep obstructing and delaying. Their goal is to delay this trial until after the November 2024 election. He has not been acquitted of that. He hasn't even been to trial due to all the legal maneuverings. In the most recent actions, Trump attempted to claim presidential immunity for his actions. The federal court rejected his claim of immunity and he appealed. In order to keep the trial on it's targeted March deadline, Jack Smith has asked SCOTUS to consider reviewing the presidential immunity claim and ruling on that, so that the trudge through the appellate court, then verdict, to then be appealed to the SCOTUS will not derail or delay the March target trial schedule. Trump is doing everything he and his lawyers possibly can to derail and delay the start of his trial.

But he has not gone on trial for insurrection yet.

There is as a court case. In Colorado. He lost. He’s an insurrectionist, a traitor to his country and his oath.

Yep. End the thread.