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

[Kismet]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Tricky arrangement for the Supes - to overturn the decision they would have to toss the facts of the original Colorado case supported by testimony and evidence at a civil proceeding which is a pretty high bar PLUS find that POTUS and VPOTUS are not officers of the USA per the 14th Amendment.

And, of course sleazy Clarence is never going to recuse.

I may be incorrect but I believe similar court cases in 3 cases have already been overturned. It all boils down to how the Supremes dissect the 14th amendment. It's original intent was to disallow confederates from serving in any government positions. It will also give the Supremes an opportunity to clarify what an insurrection really is.

BTW the suit was filed on behalf of REPUBLICAN voters.

Three other cases of a similar nature have been denied not overturned.

Some relevant analysis from back in October
https://www.jurist.org/features/2023/10 ... igibility/

[a fan]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Tricky arrangement for the Supes - to overturn the decision they would have to toss the facts of the original Colorado case supported by testimony and evidence at a civil proceeding which is a pretty high bar PLUS find that POTUS and VPOTUS are not officers of the USA per the 14th Amendment.

And, of course sleazy Clarence is never going to recuse.

BTW the suit was not brought by the Deep State but rather by counsel for VOTERS in Colorado.

I want Trump on the ballot.

That said, it's rich hearing from the team that lost their minds over the smash-and-grab spree that happened in some cities....demanding consequences for breaking the law, don't have the same standard for rich white guys with R's by their name.

What happened to: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?

Is ANYONE gonna say: well maybe Trump shouldn't have played games with the outcome of a lawful election.

ProTip: what is SUPPOSED to happen is, Republican voters are SUPPOSED to turn their back on a POS candidate that's under indictment for 91 freaking felonies, and be honorable, honest citizen voters. THEY are supposed to hold Trump accountable for following laws, and behaving ethically.

They didn't do that. And some Colorado voters called them on their bullsh*t. And instead of looking in the mirror and saying" What the F are we doing, nominating this Trump ***hole again"? They, like so many posters here, double down on their horsesh(t, and blame anyone else but themselves for this sorry state of affairs.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Citizens n Colorado are as bound by the Constitution as the rest of us. Application of a provision of the Constitution that relates to the qualifications for office is not anti-democratic or voter suppression. Assume I want to vote for a 24 year old for President, but can’t because of the Constitutional limits on age. Same thing.

Your understanding of due process is completely flawed. And several folks have tried to politely correct you, and suggested that you read the decisions. But no, not interested in that?

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Hmm, anyone running for POTUS is covered, right? Are you saying that there's special immunity from such if the person had previously one, then lost, that office?

The point of the 14th on this is that if someone had previously sworn an oath to defend the Constitution (you agree that Trump did so??) and then turns around an engages in insurrection, they have so violated that oath that they are no longer qualified from holding office.

Your argument that the standard should be whether the person has been convicted of the crime of insurrection has some reasonable logic, but it ain't what the 14th actually says in plain English. A strict constructionist would say that if they meant "convicted" they would have said so...the target at the time were former US military officers and others who had sworn an oath but had then joined the Confederacy...they needn't have been convicted, but there did have the right to a civil trial if they were to be kept out of office going forward. That's what happened here.

But I think SCOTUS will find other, narrower, ways to overturn the Colorado rulings. Maybe/probably 6-3, maybe 5-4.

But they should not. So, you never know.

As I've said, if we truly want to defeat the MAGA cult, Trump and as many MAGA supporters as possible need to be defeated at the ballot box...again...and preferably ignominiously. Break the fever. I think Trump himself is going to end up in jail, unless Biden pardons him under some sort of STFU agreement, which is unlikely as Trump won't STFU.

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Tricky arrangement for the Supes - to overturn the decision they would have to toss the facts of the original Colorado case supported by testimony and evidence at a civil proceeding which is a pretty high bar PLUS find that POTUS and VPOTUS are not officers of the USA per the 14th Amendment.

And, of course sleazy Clarence is never going to recuse.

BTW the suit was not brought by the Deep State but rather by counsel for VOTERS in Colorado.

I want Trump on the ballot.

That said, it's rich hearing from the team that lost their minds over the smash-and-grab spree that happened in some cities....demanding consequences for breaking the law, don't have the same standard for rich white guys with R's by their name.

What happened to: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?

Is ANYONE gonna say: well maybe Trump shouldn't have played games with the outcome of a lawful election.

ProTip: what is SUPPOSED to happen is, Republican voters are SUPPOSED to turn their back on a POS candidate that's under indictment for 91 freaking felonies, and be honorable, honest citizen voters. THEY are supposed to hold Trump accountable for following laws, and behaving ethically.

They didn't do that. And some Colorado voters called them on their bullsh*t. And instead of looking in the mirror and saying" What the F are we doing, nominating this Trump ***hole again"? They, like so many posters here, double down on their horsesh(t, and blame anyone else but themselves for this sorry state of affairs.

Note, as Kismet reminds us, those were Republican voters who are calling them on their BS.
Some, but only a few, R's are standing up.

[youthathletics]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

[a fan]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

[youthathletics]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

[Typical Lax Dad]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

You should let all the lawyers involved that you read this on the site formerly known as Twitter and that’s your conclusion. I am sure they would appreciate it.

[Kismet]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

Why not leave it to SCOTUS. It's likely their jurisdiction.
That way you can just stop arguing with everybody ad infinitum. Of course, I think you like arguing.

[youthathletics]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

Why not leave it to SCOTUS. It's likely their jurisdiction.
That way you can just stop arguing with everybody ad infinitum. Of course, I think you like arguing.

That’s why I am asking the question here. It would appear section 5 argues it shouldn’t even go to SCOTUS if ot clearly states Congress decides. No one was arguing, just you trolling.

[a fan]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

I do...you just don't notice.

Full Faith and Credit, is the answer.

What I'm telling you is that your party has a serious conundrum with this case: do you respect a State's rights to run their own elections the way the voters see fit? If the answer is yes? Then Trump will be off the ballot.

If the answer is no, and the Federal Government gets to decide what each State's rules are....you see what's coming, yeah?

And naturally, there's the weasel-y made up path which is to try and weasel out of making that call.....which the SCOTUS has done more than a few times. So...we wait.

Again, I want Trump on the ballot: if Republicans are dumb enough to keep asking for this guy? More power to y'all. It's YOUR vote. Because for me? The vote is more important than the outcome....by a factor of 1,000.

[Kismet]

No one was arguing, just you trolling.

You're an expert on doing that, too

[Typical Lax Dad]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

Why not leave it to SCOTUS. It's likely their jurisdiction.
That way you can just stop arguing with everybody ad infinitum. Of course, I think you like arguing.

That’s why I am asking the question here. It would appear section 5 argues it shouldn’t even go to SCOTUS if ot clearly states Congress decides. No one was arguing, just you trolling.

Insurrection falls under article 5?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Actually, if Rudolph the red nosed reindeer kicks the bucket, it might be easier for these plaintiffs to collect against his estate. But, yeah, at best they are only going to get cents on the dollar. Rudy wasn’t a trillionaire like his idol, Lord Donald of Queens.

You can't get blood from a stone. If Rudy doesn't have any money how do the plaintiffs get paid? That is after years and years of appeals. They certainly won a significant moral victory that will never find it's way into their bank account.

What is your basis for saying they won’t receive any money?

Two reasons, the appeals process has to run it's course. Then at the end of all that how much of Rudy's net worth will he have hidden? Or he could do what I would probably do...I would take an extended trip to Las Vegas and go on a world class gambling binge. I wouldn't have a penny left to my name by the time I was done. That is vindictiveness at its finest. IMO Rudee looks like a pathetic, feeble old man. A sad climax for a man whose leadership during 9/11 as mayor of NYC was inspirational to everyone who lived through those traumatic days.

How does the appeals process running out support the idea that the plaintiffs won’t receive any money? If there were more appeals their likelihood of receiving money would be enhanced? How would that work?

Supposedly Rudee is already flat broke. At the end of the appeals process if Rudee ain't got no money how do the plaintiffs get paid?? I'll say it again, you can't get blood from a stone. It is an impressive moral victory for these 2 ladies. I don't believe they will ever see one single dime.

Those are the words I was looking for.

I hope these ladies see every penny they been granted to them. The legal system in our country isn't designed to accommodate expediency. It is more like a slow, ambling river that takes years to find it's way out to sea. Unless Rudee makes a side deal with these ladies and he doesn't seem to be repentant in any way, the appeals process will begin.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/politics ... index.html

[njbill]

I presume the judge has now entered judgment. The order, I expect, also exempts the plaintiffs from the provision in the applicable rule that execution is normally stayed for 30 days “unless the court orders otherwise.” The court appears to have ordered “otherwise.”

Rudy can still get a stay if he appeals and posts a supercedeas bond. Presumably, the judge has entered judgment in the amount of the jury verdict, which, I think, would make it difficult or impossible for Rudy to post a bond in the appropriate amount, unless he has the angel of angels backing him.

What the court’s order does, however, and I think it is rather unusual, is allow the plaintiffs to proceed with execution while the post trial motions are pending.

[youthathletics]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

Why not leave it to SCOTUS. It's likely their jurisdiction.
That way you can just stop arguing with everybody ad infinitum. Of course, I think you like arguing.

That’s why I am asking the question here. It would appear section 5 argues it shouldn’t even go to SCOTUS if ot clearly states Congress decides. No one was arguing, just you trolling.

Insurrection falls under article 5?

Reading is fundamental, no one said Article 5, pay attention, slick.

[youthathletics]

I wonder why Kismet and TLD’s post are withn minutes of one another today.
#qfp

[Typical Lax Dad]

California chimes in, and sadly they don’t even know the age one must be to become president.

https://x.com/endwokeness/status/173754 ... a82I2GssRg


Further, there is an argument out there that Section 5 of Article 14, States Congress enforces this, not a State. I have read section 5, and it appears to confirm a state does not have this power. And if a state believes they have that power, without POTUS having been convicted of insurrection, what’s does that say about the elected officials and those arguing for removal?

Do you think that every State has the same election and ballot laws, YA?

Pretty sure your party doesn't want Federalized election rules, YA.

That’s my point, I don’t know how or if section 5 supersedes a state election law in a federal election for POTUS, thus giving that state the ability to overriding article 14 of the constitution. Sure, I get it for State elections of for state officials.

Not everything is partisan, afan. Occasionally, could you set the blue tinted glasses aside.

Why not leave it to SCOTUS. It's likely their jurisdiction.
That way you can just stop arguing with everybody ad infinitum. Of course, I think you like arguing.

That’s why I am asking the question here. It would appear section 5 argues it shouldn’t even go to SCOTUS if ot clearly states Congress decides. No one was arguing, just you trolling.

Insurrection falls under article 5?

Reading is fundamental, no one said Article 5, pay attention, slick.

My mistake. Did you find out if Tiger’s trans daughter has a penis yet? Maybe it’s Michelle Obama’s kid?

Section Five “enables Congress, in case the State shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment.”

Is this your musing?

[old salt]

You can't post a link to CNN. That is all propaganda. You need to post a link to a guy on the site formerly know as twitter or one of Old Soldier's go to sources....Washington Examiner, National Review or New York Post or maybe The Hill.

Not necessary. SCOTUS will be just fine. No need to dampen the self-licking "reasoning" in this forum.
Apparently, insurrection is in the eye of one appointed state court judge in a civil case. ...finding of fact.