January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office.

Question for the lawyers and judges here: from a legal standpoint (vis-a-vis due process, jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc.) is the judge's decision/opinion referenced above one that meets constitutional scrutiny? I don't have a WaPo subscription, so paywall blocks what I assume was an explanation of the Deuce of Orange's consequences/sentence once the judge found him guilty of insurrection? Will we be seeing Orange wearing Orange? Please enlighten. Thanks.

I posted the entire article, above, so the paywall is not a problem. Not sure I follow the rest of your post.

The WaPo article is about a civil -- not criminal -- case brought by the Colorado Secretary of State and four or five GOP voters, which seeks to have Trump struck from the presidential ballot in Colorado based on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. The case has nothing to do with "jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc." There is no jail time or criminal punishment at issue in the case. It was a bench trial to a judge, presenting arguments for and against Trump being on the ballot based on the Constitution's/the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. All of the process due to Trump under the laws and Federal and State Constitutions was provided. The Colorado Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Secretary of State and GOP Voters on December 6 or 7, I think.

The NY case currently ongoing is likewise a civil fraud case. So prospect of jail time or criminal punishment.

The Georgia case against Trump and his Idiot Apostles -- Meadows, Eastman, Giuliani -- is a criminal case. If convicted, Trump and others could see jail time and/or other criminal punishment.

The Florida "documents" case is a federal criminal case brought by the Special Counsel. If the Trump appointed judge doesn't get too much in the way on behalf of Trump, criminal sanctions raise their ugly if warranted head here too.

The D.C. federal district court case concerning the January 6 insurrection (or, if you are the GOP, tourist visit with occasional ardent displays of First Amendment pride) is a criminal case.

Trump is receiving the totality of the due process required by the Constitution and laws in all of these cases.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office.

Question for the lawyers and judges here: from a legal standpoint (vis-a-vis due process, jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc.) is the judge's decision/opinion referenced above one that meets constitutional scrutiny? I don't have a WaPo subscription, so paywall blocks what I assume was an explanation of the Deuce of Orange's consequences/sentence once the judge found him guilty of insurrection? Will we be seeing Orange wearing Orange? Please enlighten. Thanks.

I posted the entire article, above, so the paywall is not a problem. Not sure I follow the rest of your post.

The WaPo article is about a civil -- not criminal -- case brought by the Colorado Secretary of State and four or five GOP voters, which seeks to have Trump struck from the presidential ballot in Colorado based on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. The case has nothing to do with "jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc." There is no jail time or criminal punishment at issue in the case. It was a bench trial to a judge, presenting arguments for and against Trump being on the ballot based on the Constitution's/the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. All of the process due to Trump under the laws and Federal and State Constitutions was provided. The Colorado Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Secretary of State and GOP Voters on December 6 or 7, I think.

The NY case currently ongoing is likewise a civil fraud case. So prospect of jail time or criminal punishment.

The Georgia case against Trump and his Idiot Apostles -- Meadows, Eastman, Giuliani -- is a criminal case. If convicted, Trump and others could see jail time and/or other criminal punishment.

The Florida "documents" case is a federal criminal case brought by the Special Counsel. If the Trump appointed judge doesn't get too much in the way on behalf of Trump, criminal sanctions raise their ugly if warranted head here too.

The D.C. federal district court case concerning the January 6 insurrection (or, if you are the GOP, tourist visit with occasional ardent displays of First Amendment pride) is a criminal case.

Trump is receiving the totality of the due process required by the Constitution and laws in all of these cases.

Appreciate the clarification. I hadn't caught any mention of the Colorado case being a civil one from what you had pasted of the article. Assumed there might be more. Should have just googled. Due process for the Deuce is important for all of us to feel confident we (and our family, friends, etc.) would receive the same, to state the obvious.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office.

Question for the lawyers and judges here: from a legal standpoint (vis-a-vis due process, jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc.) is the judge's decision/opinion referenced above one that meets constitutional scrutiny? I don't have a WaPo subscription, so paywall blocks what I assume was an explanation of the Deuce of Orange's consequences/sentence once the judge found him guilty of insurrection? Will we be seeing Orange wearing Orange? Please enlighten. Thanks.

I posted the entire article, above, so the paywall is not a problem. Not sure I follow the rest of your post.

The WaPo article is about a civil -- not criminal -- case brought by the Colorado Secretary of State and four or five GOP voters, which seeks to have Trump struck from the presidential ballot in Colorado based on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. The case has nothing to do with "jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc." There is no jail time or criminal punishment at issue in the case. It was a bench trial to a judge, presenting arguments for and against Trump being on the ballot based on the Constitution's/the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. All of the process due to Trump under the laws and Federal and State Constitutions was provided. The Colorado Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Secretary of State and GOP Voters on December 6 or 7, I think.

The NY case currently ongoing is likewise a civil fraud case. So prospect of jail time or criminal punishment.

The Georgia case against Trump and his Idiot Apostles -- Meadows, Eastman, Giuliani -- is a criminal case. If convicted, Trump and others could see jail time and/or other criminal punishment.

The Florida "documents" case is a federal criminal case brought by the Special Counsel. If the Trump appointed judge doesn't get too much in the way on behalf of Trump, criminal sanctions raise their ugly if warranted head here too.

The D.C. federal district court case concerning the January 6 insurrection (or, if you are the GOP, tourist visit with occasional ardent displays of First Amendment pride) is a criminal case.

Trump is receiving the totality of the due process required by the Constitution and laws in all of these cases.

Appreciate the clarification. I hadn't caught any mention of the Colorado case being a civil one from what you had pasted of the article. Assumed there might be more. Should have just googled. Due process for the Deuce is important for all of us to feel confident we (and our family, friends, etc.) would receive the same, to state the obvious.

You believe your family and friends would receive the same treatment as a former President or The United States of America?

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Well, unless I'm mistaken the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply equally to each and every American citizen.

[MDlaxfan76]

EDIT to Seacoster re miss-type: you meant NO prospect of jail time or criminal punishment with regard to New York civil fraud case.

That, too, is a trial with a judge no jury, though Trump had the opportunity to request a jury had he bothered...might or might not have been granted, but he didn't ask for it.

He's indeed getting full due process under the law in every instance. He's likely (IMO) to win some of the cases, lose others...based upon that process and the facts and laws involved. Given the likelihood of one or more losses, his chief 'legal' strategy has been to seek to postpone, delay, and "try the case" in the 'court' of public opinion rather than actual court.

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

And yet, nevertheless, a trier of fact concluded that Trump incited an insurrection. But also finding that the relevant law didn't include such a fact as preventing the 'guilty' party of becoming President. The legal argument made by the judge seems ridiculous, but "due process" allows for an appeal, which is proceeding. The appeal process may well find that the legal ruling was incorrect and that he should not be on the Colorado ballot...But either party can appeal whatever decision to SCOTUS for a final ruling...but the initial trier of fact concluded that Trump did incite an insurrection.

He'll face a jury in the DC federal case on charges that don't include incitement to insurrection, but rather on conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Note, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV...so, if I got any of that wrong, please correct me.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention.

I usually leave my lawyering stuff to my lawyer. I had kind of a legal brain fart when I read the original post's article paste. As I mentioned, mea culpa for not just googling. Please don't tase me, lax bros!

[MDlaxfan76]

Well, unless I'm mistaken the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply equally to each and every American citizen.

That's the way it is supposed to work. Pretty sure TLD would agree.

I think TLD is asking whether you think that's actually how things work? And specifically whether you think that's what is actually happening in these cases, and, if not, how so?

[MDlaxfan76]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention.

I usually leave my lawyering stuff to my lawyer. I had kind of a legal brain fart when I read the original post's article paste. As I mentioned, mea culpa for not just googling. Please don't tase me, lax bros!

I leave the "lawyering" to my lawyer as well, (and hope to have rare needs!) but this is a citizenship matter, a political matter, that deserves some attention...IMO. Obviously not everyone agrees that it's worth the attention to what these various cases are and what they mean, but most participants on this thread clearly have an interest in understanding...as you've just expressed you do as well. This thread and some others have discussed the various cases in quite a lot of detail, with lots of links to legal analyses by folks whose primary attention is to such matters, and whose expertise is much greater than the average poster's.

BTW, we all have "brain fart's" from time to time, no worries there!

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Well, unless I'm mistaken the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply equally to each and every American citizen.

That's the way it is supposed to work. Pretty sure TLD would agree.

I think TLD is asking whether you think that's actually how things work? And specifically whether you think that's what is actually happening in these cases, and, if not, how so?

No on the "how things work", of course. I've been sitting in the cheap seats on the legal boondoggle carnival sideshow of Trump. It's a pretty overwhelming All You Can Eat Buffet to try to dig into if one wants to be informed more than casually. Kind of why that "judge rules" thing caught my eye.

I assume every place Mr. Trump is defending himself is a place where the facts and evidence were considered, and the charges were brought to court fairly. 100% how it should work. And he should 100% have the opportunity to defend himself. And Justice hopefully prevails (call me naive). He's sleeping in the bed he made. How he sleeps is another thing altogether. I have always assumed sociopaths, psychopaths, compulsive liars, and the like sleep like babies. In his case, he could certainly wake up someday on a prison cot.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Duplicate Delete attempt

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Edit for somehow dual posting. Internet is slow. And I'm off for a walk!

[MDlaxfan76]

Well, unless I'm mistaken the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply equally to each and every American citizen.

That's the way it is supposed to work. Pretty sure TLD would agree.

I think TLD is asking whether you think that's actually how things work? And specifically whether you think that's what is actually happening in these cases, and, if not, how so?

No on the "how things work", of course. I've been sitting in the cheap seats on the legal boondoggle carnival sideshow of Trump. It's a pretty overwhelming All You Can Eat Buffet to try to dig into if one wants to be informed more than casually. Kind of why that "judge rules" thing caught my eye.

I assume every place Mr. Trump is defending himself is a place where the facts and evidence were considered, and the charges were brought to court fairly. 100% how it should work. And he should 100% have the opportunity to defend himself. And Justice hopefully prevails (call me naive). He's sleeping in the bed he made. How he sleeps is another thing altogether. I have always assumed sociopaths, psychopaths, compulsive liars, and the like sleep like babies. In his case, he could certainly wake up someday on a prison cot.

I think I'd say that we 'hope' things work that way, with Trump afforded no more nor less 'due process' than the next Joe Schmo, but the reality is that the rich, powerful, and famous have significant advantages versus regular 'Joe'. And even more so, apparently, with a former POTUS now candidate for POTUS making the argument that he should be afforded special privileges and consideration because of that campaign...with nearly half the country too (something) to understand how dangerous that 'above the law' claim actually could be...or don't care.

Trump is definitely (IMO) getting very special consideration well beyond the simply "I'm rich and famous and can afford many lawyers" advantages. His "free speech" claims would be summarily dismissed if he was pretty much anyone else.

And while I hope "Justice prevails", there's a very real chance that his strategy of delay until he can control the federal cases and make them go poof, and his strategy to get that one juror in Georgia to hang a trial, could work despite overwhelming evidence.

I just got back from a great bike ride...hope your walk was invigorating as well.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office.

Question for the lawyers and judges here: from a legal standpoint (vis-a-vis due process, jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc.) is the judge's decision/opinion referenced above one that meets constitutional scrutiny? I don't have a WaPo subscription, so paywall blocks what I assume was an explanation of the Deuce of Orange's consequences/sentence once the judge found him guilty of insurrection? Will we be seeing Orange wearing Orange? Please enlighten. Thanks.

I posted the entire article, above, so the paywall is not a problem. Not sure I follow the rest of your post.

The WaPo article is about a civil -- not criminal -- case brought by the Colorado Secretary of State and four or five GOP voters, which seeks to have Trump struck from the presidential ballot in Colorado based on Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. The case has nothing to do with "jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc." There is no jail time or criminal punishment at issue in the case. It was a bench trial to a judge, presenting arguments for and against Trump being on the ballot based on the Constitution's/the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. All of the process due to Trump under the laws and Federal and State Constitutions was provided. The Colorado Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Secretary of State and GOP Voters on December 6 or 7, I think.

The NY case currently ongoing is likewise a civil fraud case. So prospect of jail time or criminal punishment.

The Georgia case against Trump and his Idiot Apostles -- Meadows, Eastman, Giuliani -- is a criminal case. If convicted, Trump and others could see jail time and/or other criminal punishment.

The Florida "documents" case is a federal criminal case brought by the Special Counsel. If the Trump appointed judge doesn't get too much in the way on behalf of Trump, criminal sanctions raise their ugly if warranted head here too.

The D.C. federal district court case concerning the January 6 insurrection (or, if you are the GOP, tourist visit with occasional ardent displays of First Amendment pride) is a criminal case.

Trump is receiving the totality of the due process required by the Constitution and laws in all of these cases.

Appreciate the clarification. I hadn't caught any mention of the Colorado case being a civil one from what you had pasted of the article. Assumed there might be more. Should have just googled. Due process for the Deuce is important for all of us to feel confident we (and our family, friends, etc.) would receive the same, to state the obvious.

Agreed. Due process for Trump is important so that at least those of his apostles who still can discern the truth will know that he was afforded all the rights the Constitution gives him.

MDLaxfan, thanks for the comments on my error. You are correct. Much appreciated.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well, unless I'm mistaken the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply equally to each and every American citizen.

Each and every citizen gets the same treatment? That’s how it works? We have had a constitution and bill of rights for a long time. Each and every citizen has always been treated equally? That’s what you are going with? I don’t want to hear about aspirations, I am talking about real life application…..

[old salt]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

[MDlaxfan76]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

So what? You been living under a rock and didn’t know? Didn’t bother to read the thread? Just because one link wasn’t explicit doesn’t mean it’s not known by anyone paying attention or bothering to google even. No problem for waffle, we all get a “brain fart” now and again. Why are you jumping in?

[old salt]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

So what? You been living under a rock and didn’t know? Didn’t bother to read the thread? Just because one link wasn’t explicit doesn’t mean it’s not known by anyone paying attention or bothering to google even. No problem for waffle, we all get a “brain fart” now and again. Why are you jumping in?

...because you jumped in & took him to task for not having foreknowledge of the CO case.
Not everyone reads every word of every post on this forum.
The WP article did not report that it was a civil case.
The media headlines = Trump is found to be an insurrectionist.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... ectionist/

[MDlaxfan76]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

So what? You been living under a rock and didn’t know? Didn’t bother to read the thread? Just because one link wasn’t explicit doesn’t mean it’s not known by anyone paying attention or bothering to google even. No problem for waffle, we all get a “brain fart” now and again. Why are you jumping in?

...because you jumped in & took him to task for not having foreknowledge of the CO case.
Not everyone reads every word of every post on this forum.
The WP article did not report that it was a civil case.
The media headlines = Trump is found to be an insurrectionist.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... ectionist/

Nice try at avoiding responsibility for having a clue.

Waffle didn’t avoid it, to her credit IMO.

[old salt]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

So what? You been living under a rock and didn’t know? Didn’t bother to read the thread? Just because one link wasn’t explicit doesn’t mean it’s not known by anyone paying attention or bothering to google even. No problem for waffle, we all get a “brain fart” now and again. Why are you jumping in?

...because you jumped in & took him to task for not having foreknowledge of the CO case.
Not everyone reads every word of every post on this forum.
The WP article did not report that it was a civil case.
The media headlines = Trump is found to be an insurrectionist.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... ectionist/

Nice try at avoiding responsibility for having a clue.

Waffle didn’t avoid it, to her credit IMO.

I knew it was a civil case. What makes you think otherwise ?

[MDlaxfan76]

I agree that waffle's question is puzzling...how could anyone remotely paying attention not know that what the Colorado judge "decided" was not a criminal charge, and never could have resulted in jail? Edit: waffle says should have googled, must not have been paying attention. Could have also just read this thread which has discussed it several times.

...stop 2nd guessing everyone. The WP article quoted about the CO case does not indicate it was a civil vs criminal case.

So what? You been living under a rock and didn’t know? Didn’t bother to read the thread? Just because one link wasn’t explicit doesn’t mean it’s not known by anyone paying attention or bothering to google even. No problem for waffle, we all get a “brain fart” now and again. Why are you jumping in?

...because you jumped in & took him to task for not having foreknowledge of the CO case.
Not everyone reads every word of every post on this forum.
The WP article did not report that it was a civil case.
The media headlines = Trump is found to be an insurrectionist.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... ectionist/

Nice try at avoiding responsibility for having a clue.

Waffle didn’t avoid it, to her credit IMO.

I knew it was a civil case. What makes you think otherwise ?

Actually, I assumed you did know and were simply being disingenuous by pretending that because the one link didn’t mention civil it was unknowable. Waffle quickly made her mea culpa, which I noted in my Edit, and yet you felt the need to jump in to attack me, absent any actual discussion of the matter.

So, do you disagree or agree with my summary of the legal matters? Any substantive contribution to the conversation?