Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

Roberts is basically a quivering bowl of jello. He’ll do whatever his paymasters tell him. He doesn’t think.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

Agree.

And taking up this case means a ruling is unavoidable and it is election year. SCOTUS knew exactly what they were doing when they took the case, which suggests enough people on the court also have strong feelings about how the J6 protesters were prosecuted. I am no fan of Turnip and his minions but I've read enough about the J6 prosecutions to feel somewhat queasy by it and there's definitely strong case to be made that DOJ greatly overstepped and came down too heavily on partisan rather than constitutional grounds. But we will see.

I can't ignore that the more intense the prosecution of Turnip and his minions become, the more he improves in the polls. That should tell Democrats to back off. The Democrats risk losing everything, and I mean everything, in November 2024. A clean political sweep means Turnip will also pardon all the J6 people along with a lot more.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

He waited several hours and once it was clear that the MPD and Capitol Police were able to stem the tide, the National Guard were allowed in. The facts around this are evident in several hundred law cases where people have pled guilty to the facts. Sorry you cant even take primary evidence to heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m very much not a Trump fan and wholeheartedly believe this is terrible. Among other things, I’m against the courts making Trump’s lie true: they’re stealing the 2024 election.

How?

Barring someone under the US CONSTITUTION from appearing on the ballot isn't stealing an election. And watch, the SCOTUS with several Trump appointees, will uphold this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hardly "stupid."
The man incited a riot, an invasion of the US Capitol building, the deaths of police officers and his own supporters.
Don't you remember when he said that it was OK to dump the mags so his armed supporters would have full access to the Capitol building? Don't you remember he said he wasn't worried because their guns wouldn't be turned on him?
If that's not inciting an armed insurrection, an attack on the United States government, I don't know what is.
I hope every Blue state (and maybe some Red ones) will strike this traitor from their ballots.
States run federal elections. They have the right to do remove this traitor from their presidential ballots, and they have the moral obligation to do so in the name of preserving our democracy.

So you actually don’t believe in democracy then? Thanks for playing.

You’re the ones always saying that it’s a republic, not a democracy. The constitution includes the rules for the republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

He can both have immunity for his words and still be deemed to have cause an insurrection against the US Government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this case intertwined with the Jack Smith case in DC? If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is entitled to immunity, or merely stays the DC District Court, won't this ruling be stayed as well?

BTW another major case heading to SCOTUS that will have ramifications for most of the J6 protestors arrested and prosecuted and convicted. If SCOTUS rules against DOJ and there's strong suggestions they will, most of the convictions will be overturned and the protesters released. And this will be in the summer of 2024. Just in time for the election. Oy vey indeed. Feeling like 2024 is shaping up to be an utter and complete disaster for the Democrats.

Some legal pundits have opined that Chief Justice Roberts does not want a repeat of the 2000 election where the Supreme Court played a very direct role. It would seem likely that the Supreme Court would prefer to let the voters decide this time around.

Roberts is basically a quivering bowl of jello. He’ll do whatever his paymasters tell him. He doesn’t think.

You might be surprised if one of the liberal justices also agrees that the Supreme Court should not play a direct role either. Both conservative and liberal justices have often sided with the other in various opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hardly "stupid."
The man incited a riot, an invasion of the US Capitol building, the deaths of police officers and his own supporters.
Don't you remember when he said that it was OK to dump the mags so his armed supporters would have full access to the Capitol building? Don't you remember he said he wasn't worried because their guns wouldn't be turned on him?
If that's not inciting an armed insurrection, an attack on the United States government, I don't know what is.
I hope every Blue state (and maybe some Red ones) will strike this traitor from their ballots.
States run federal elections. They have the right to do remove this traitor from their presidential ballots, and they have the moral obligation to do so in the name of preserving our democracy.

So you actually don’t believe in democracy then? Thanks for playing.

What if the Democrats wanted to put Obama on the ballot again? He’s certainly electable in a democracy, but he would be ineligible according to the rules of the republic.

[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.

You have got be joking - The House Jan 6 came up with tons of evidence that this was premeditated …