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?

Trump's filing to the SCOTUS is a joke.

Anonymous wrote:Overthrowing an election is not part of the President's official duties. Parse it all you want, insurrection is not part of the job.

Also, validating election results is NOT a part of the President's official duties. Elections are the purview of states. Approval of the Electoral college votes is the purview of Congress. Other than being a candidate, the President has no official election duties. They can choose to appeal or request audits of the elections through the state boards of elections, but they don't call the secretary of state or the governor of a state to ask for help in finding votes. They don't try to lobby state officials to change results.

The President should also not be lobbying the Vice President on his official duties, should not be holding a rally and encouraging his supporters to march up to Congress while Congress is counting and approving the electoral college votes and suggesting that the supporters "show support" for some Congressmen and "show less support" for other Congressmen. He did all of these things as a private citizen who was a candidate for the office of President. Not as the incumbent President in office.

The President has NO official duties that are involved with the elections. So, trying to say that any of his actions surrounding January 6 were his official duties is a blatant fabrication and an attempt to steal the election from his opponent, who was the rightfully elected President-elect.

Overthrowing an election is not part of the President's official duties. Parse it all you want, insurrection is not part of the job.

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

This is a really good article articulating the arguments for and against barring Trump from state ballots, in the case that will go to the SCOTUS.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/1/3/24022580/supreme-court-donald-trump-ballot-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment-colorado-anderson

Anonymous wrote:Surely this will be the end of Trump.

No. But I do like that the media has somewhat rediscovered that Trump tried to overthrow the government instead of just regurgitating his tweet of the day or whatever.

Surely this will be the end of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:Jena Griswold, the Colorado Secretary of State, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking it to decide the issue of whether Trump can be disqualified from the Colorado ballot pursuant to Section 3, of the 14th Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294684/20240102155632256_23-696%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Partial%20Grant%20PDFA.pdf

The brief also asked that the court not grant cert on the 1A issues brought up in the Colorado GOP’s appeal.

Jena Griswold, the Colorado Secretary of State, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court asking it to decide the issue of whether Trump can be disqualified from the Colorado ballot pursuant to Section 3, of the 14th Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-696/294684/20240102155632256_23-696%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Partial%20Grant%20PDFA.pdf

Anonymous wrote:This undermines "the office" argument.

Elections are run by states and not by the President. His argument that this was part of his presidential duties is going to get laughed out of court just like Mark Meadows’s was.

This undermines "the office" argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

Haha. Yes. Makes no sense at all that we'd bar him from being a deputy postmaster but it's totally o.k. to let the insurrectionist be President. And to reach that conclusion, you have to decide that person holding the office of President isn't an officer of the United States. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "textualists" on the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution really meant "an officer of the United States except for the office of President" where the exception is written in invisible ink.

I think the distinction some are making is that an officer of the United States is appointed, whereas the President is elected.

But we will see what how the SC views that argument.

Some of officers are indeed appointed. It doesn’t follow that all of them are appointed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

Haha. Yes. Makes no sense at all that we'd bar him from being a deputy postmaster but it's totally o.k. to let the insurrectionist be President. And to reach that conclusion, you have to decide that person holding the office of President isn't an officer of the United States. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "textualists" on the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution really meant "an officer of the United States except for the office of President" where the exception is written in invisible ink.

I think the distinction some are making is that an officer of the United States is appointed, whereas the President is elected.

But we will see what how the SC views that argument.

If we're splitting those kinds of hairs, I'd say he's appointed by electors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's defenders cling to two atarguments:

1 - the President of the United States is not an "officer"; and
2- He's never been convicted

Both arguments are complete BS and fly in the face of logic and jurisprudence

The 14th amendment, Section 3 also includes "or hold any office, civil or military..."

The Office of the President is most definitely an office. So whether you consider him an officer or not, the 14th amendment would not allow Trump to hold the office of the President.

Not to give the argument to much credence, but I think it is more focused on the other part of section 3, where the disqualification only applies to anyone "who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States." So basically they are saying that the oath he took as president was not as "an officer of the United States" and therefore doesn't count. However, the oath of the dogcatcher would count. Because that makes total sense.

Haha. Yes. Makes no sense at all that we'd bar him from being a deputy postmaster but it's totally o.k. to let the insurrectionist be President. And to reach that conclusion, you have to decide that person holding the office of President isn't an officer of the United States. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "textualists" on the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution really meant "an officer of the United States except for the office of President" where the exception is written in invisible ink.

I think the distinction some are making is that an officer of the United States is appointed, whereas the President is elected.

But we will see what how the SC views that argument.