Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This undermines "the office" argument.

This has nothing to do with the officer argument. It’s a different case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This undermines "the office" argument.

This has nothing to do with the officer argument. It’s a different case.

When his attorney literally refers to the position "in furthernace of his office" she is referring to the "office of the presidency" - to then claim that he was not an officer given the plain terminology is shocking.

Also, he swore an oath before hundreds of millions on January 20, 2017 to the office of the presidency. Pretty plain facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's the republicans who haven't lost their last shreds of decency who want Trump to be off the ballot in Colorado. I

what does the base in Colorado want?

Why is what Colorado wants (btw, not to elect Trump) relevant if it’s determined to be unconstitutional? What if the base in Colorado wanted Obama on the ballot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This undermines "the office" argument.

Actually, lying, trying to subvert and sabotage a legitimate election, trying to get election officials to lie and "find" votes that were never cast for you, sending fake electors, accusing honest election workers of cheating, and riling up your supporters and base with lies to the point where they rioted to try and prevent the legitimate election from being certified is indeed pursuing "furtherance of your office."

However, none of that stuff in furtherance of his office was legal - and willful, illegal acts are not covered by immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's the republicans who haven't lost their last shreds of decency who want Trump to be off the ballot in Colorado. I

what does the base in Colorado want?

Why is what Colorado wants (btw, not to elect Trump) relevant if it’s determined to be unconstitutional? What if the base in Colorado wanted Obama on the ballot?

How is it unconstitutional? The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution spells out how it's constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's the republicans who haven't lost their last shreds of decency who want Trump to be off the ballot in Colorado. I

what does the base in Colorado want?

Why is what Colorado wants (btw, not to elect Trump) relevant if it’s determined to be unconstitutional? What if the base in Colorado wanted Obama on the ballot?

How is it unconstitutional? The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution spells out how it's constitutional.

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. The Colorado Supreme Court has determined that Trump’s placement on a ballot there is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter what “the base” there wants.

[Anonymous]

According to Trump's lawyer, Kavanaugh will rule for Trump because he owes him for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to Trump's lawyer, Kavanaugh will rule for Trump because he owes him for the job.

This is how squeamish they actually feel about SCOTUS and the strength of their case. I’m sure SCOTUS (like many/most GOP politicians) wish Trump would just permanently go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's the republicans who haven't lost their last shreds of decency who want Trump to be off the ballot in Colorado. I

what does the base in Colorado want?

Why is what Colorado wants (btw, not to elect Trump) relevant if it’s determined to be unconstitutional? What if the base in Colorado wanted Obama on the ballot?

+1 or a 20 year old Canadian-born person with a green card?

[Anonymous]

One possibility I'll throw out there. SCOTUS grants cert, but puts the case on its regular spring docket so that a decision would come out in June. They then deny immunity on the emergency docket so the DC criminal case goes to trial in March. SCOTUS will then be able to see whether he's convicted in April or May, and if his polling tanks after that conviction. If it does, then can declare him ineligible so the GOP can swap someone else in for the general. And if it doesn't, then they keep him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One possibility I'll throw out there. SCOTUS grants cert, but puts the case on its regular spring docket so that a decision would come out in June. They then deny immunity on the emergency docket so the DC criminal case goes to trial in March. SCOTUS will then be able to see whether he's convicted in April or May, and if his polling tanks after that conviction. If it does, then can declare him ineligible so the GOP can swap someone else in for the general. And if it doesn't, then they keep him.

I think they're trying to figure out how to do as little as possible with respect to setting problematic precedent protecting the most corrupt and criminal Presidential candidate any of us/them will see in our lifetimes.

[Anonymous]

This is probably an example of the legal maxim that "hard cases make bad law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

It's heading to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

However it turns out, Trump’s Insurrection will now be at the heart of a landmark decision. What a legacy…