Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Trump will not go away. If he should lose in primaries then he will rum as a write in candidate and his base will vote for him.

This is the best case scenario to counter "no labels" and Joe Manchin (because we all know Manchin is going to happen)

Not to derail this thread but Manchin won’t run. He’s too lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).

This is progressive porn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has to keep in mind, the Federalist Society - the primary funders of the "conservative court" that bought and paid for Kavanaugh, Barrrett and Gorsuch is also underpinning the Haley campaign.

In other words, the money right is done with Trump. IMO, that more than anything else drives a SCTOUS decision.

If trump goes down, desantis is the nominee, not Haley. If you look at the polling, desantis is far and away the second choice among trump voters.

Imagine the Republican National Convention if Trump is in 2nd with a lot of pledged delegates and is pressured to formally concede and withdraw to release his delegates to vote for the winner to show unity (as the losing candidates all did in 2016).

This is progressive porn.

Nah. It’s republicans pretending they still have a normal party. Everyone else knows how this is gonna go.

[Anonymous]

This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

Please read the Colorado court decision. The court of law DID have a finding of an insurrection and that the defendant indeed engaged in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

The "originalists" and the "textualists" will quickly embrace a newly conjured requirement when it suits their purposes.

And, yeah, once again - there was a *five day* trial which resulted in a determination that Trump engaged in insurrection - an act which disqualifies him from assuming the office of President (which is, as the name would indicate, a federal office.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

Where does the constitution say it requires a criminal conviction? Can’t find that in my copy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

This isn't a criminal matter, so there doesn't need to be a criminal charge.

This is a finding of fact that the defendant "engaged" in an insurrection, and a court, after a 5 day hearing with witnesses, a defense and no dispute of facts, found that the defendant did, in fact, engage in an insurrection and as such, was not eligible to appear on a state ballot for office, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Article 3.

What you have posted is not, in fact, a part of the Amendment, but rather a newly conjured requirement that is beyond the plain text and understanding of, and intention behind, the Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it would be a criminal matter. It would be "insurrection" according to you. That's one step removed from treason.

You want it so bad, you'll twist your logic into a pretzel to get your way. It's not happening.

Trump 2024!

Nope, you want to deny it so bad you cannot see the plain facts as presented.

[Anonymous]

Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest

[Anonymous]

MAGAs gotta MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably what the SCOTUS will do as well...wait for the ballots on the general election.

I doubt that.
I think they will rule earlier rather than later and that ruling will be that states cannot prevent Trump (or any other candidate) from being on the ballot.
There has been no charge of insurrection and no finding of insurrection in a court of law. It really is that simple.

You’re a traitor to your country.