Colorado case. To keep Trump off ballot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

They all called it an insurrection on that day. It was organized and intended to prevent Congress from certifying that Biden had won the election. It was a coup attempt organized by the idiot incumbent office holder which disqualifies him from holding office again.

"They all." You mean the Democrats.

McConnell, McCarthy etc all called it an insurrection. Then, when we allowed Trump to 1000% get away with it, they started hedging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

A conviction has never been needed before now. Why should Trump get special treatment?

Also, Colorado went to great lengths to find an appropriate definition for “insurrection,” and weighed the evidence. You can read it for yourself to get the answers you seek.

There is no question of his guilt, but would be surprised if this partisan court held him to account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

Yes Arnold Schwarzenegger should run and the voters can decide if he should be president or not. Same with Maxwell Frost. No more of those stupid requirements.

You know, I am certain, that he does not meet the basic, and I mean BASIC qualifications.
Your arguments is shallow. Think deeper, if you can.

DP. What basic requirements? You mean, set forth in the Constitution? Nah, those are just suggestions. Now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

Wut? The president isn’t included …. In what now?

Yes, Trump is above the law like all rich folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

There was a trial, though. Why do you now know this?

“There was a trial conducted for the sole purpose of determining — both factually and legally — whether Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.

Indeed, there was a full-blown evidentiary proceeding conducted under the Colorado rules of evidence and presided over by an experienced trial judge. The judge:
(1) heard live testimony by a significant number of witnesses,
(2) evaluated live expert witness testimony and analysis,
(3) received various types of exhibits:
· Video evidence (including of Trump admitting key facts)
· Tweets (Trump admitting key facts)
· Documents (including information from the Secret Service and the FBI)
· Factual findings reported by the seasoned former prosecutors and investigators on the January 6th congressional committee, and
(4) analyzed legal materials from conservative constitutional scholars and others regarding the meaning of the word “insurrection” in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (containing the insurrection disqualification provision).
After reviewing all the testimony and the applicable law, the trial judge found that Trump “engaged” — indeed incited — an insurrection against the Constitution (“a public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law”; which, in this case, was hindering the quintessential constitutional function of certifying the results of a U.S. presidential election).”

You can find documentation of the trial here: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

It's great that you think he must be convicted of a crime, but that's not what the 14th Amendment says and that's not how it was implemented historically. Confederates who had previously sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution didn't have to be convicted of a crime before being excluded from eligibility for office. Maybe we could amend the Constitution to include that requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

Trump tried to use mob violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. That's an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

A conviction has never been needed before now. Why should Trump get special treatment?

Also, Colorado went to great lengths to find an appropriate definition for “insurrection,” and weighed the evidence. You can read it for yourself to get the answers you seek.

Colorado also permitted hearsay evidence, which is not allowed in a trial.
There was NO TRIAL for "insurrection." Because nobody has been charged with it.

You need to go back to law school. Your "hearsay" argument makes you sound like you heard some legal terms but don't know what the f**k you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

I agree there is no direction in the 14th amendment as to how one should determine if someone has formented an insurrection. I do think something with objective criteria should be put in place so we have a standard across states. If not through the leg branch (preferred), through the judicial branch as is happening now. I just happen to think the SC should choose a high standard in their creation of the criteria. A conviction on related charges would be what I would choose.

My prediction - there will not be a decision on whether there was an "insurrection" by SCOTUS. There has been no TRIAL for insurrection.
It will be determined on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - that the president is not included in this.
And, it would not surprise me if the decision is 9-0.

There was a trial and the court determined that Trump engaged in insurrection. It lasted several days and Trump was entitled to present evidence, make arguments, and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

Yes Arnold Schwarzenegger should run and the voters can decide if he should be president or not. Same with Maxwell Frost. No more of those stupid requirements.

You know, I am certain, that he does not meet the basic, and I mean BASIC qualifications.
Your arguments is shallow. Think deeper, if you can.

The Constitution imposes qualifications. In addition to being 35 years old and natural born, it requires that a person not have engaged in insurrection against the United States. Two out of three doesn't cut it.

[Anonymous]

You can see how disrespectful Republicans are of the law with their threats.

"You cannot apply the law to Trump because, if you do, we will use the pretense of law to retaliate against Democrats." They are tell us that Trump is disqualified for his attempt to overthrow our government, they will make up reasons to disqualify Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

Isn’t there footage of him saying ‘peacefully and patriotically’?
Trump tried to use mob violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. That's an insurrection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

There were charges of seditious conspiracy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

Trump is currently being charged basically of insurrection; he hasn't been convicted yet, but that doesn't mean that some people who participated on J6 weren't insurrectionists, Trump included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am as anti trump as they come. I think the SC should reinstate Trump on the ballot.

I know that he formented an insurrection against the US. We all saw it. But I think before we can invoke the constitutional escape hatch, he must be convincted of this crime.

Let’s beat him at the ballot box.

If the 14th amendment doesn’t cite criminal conviction as a prerequisite for precluding someone from holding office, why do you think conviction is a must?

DP.
Some people are labeling J6 as an insurrection. Others are labeling it as a protest that turned into a riot. So, one man's insurrection is another man's riot. Without a conviction, what occurred on J6 is defined by individuals and the way they perceived it.
And, it is interesting that not one person has been even charged with "insurrection."

There were charges of seditious conspiracy.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach

Trump is currently being charged basically of insurrection; he hasn't been convicted yet, but that doesn't mean that some people who participated on J6 weren't insurrectionists, Trump included.

There’s no “basically.” There are no charges for insurrection nor despite frantic posts above, have there been any trials for such charges, for Trump or anyone associated with J6.