Merged Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from the ballot

[Jimmy Higgins]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

And it wasn’t “asserted”. There was a trial and it was determined from the evidence presented.

Determined based on what standard?

I haven’t read the trial transcript.

But the Constitution sets the parameters for who can run. Trump qualifies based on his age and nation of origin.

Do we really know this? By what standard has it been determined he meets these qualifications? Is this part “self-executing”?

Have we seen his birth certificate?

Come on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I recall reading a pretty detailed discussion of the existing precedent in this case, and the upshot is, the USA has ALREADY used this amendment to prevent people from ruinning for or holding office based on cases with no criminal conviction.

That is the first I've heard of that. Link?

The precedent exists. It has already happened. The people who wrote the amendment have already used it exactly like this. So the “originalist” viewpoint must comport with the way the original writers used it. Which was to prevent people who were a part of, not necessarily convicted for, insurrection.

And the previous J6 cases have already proved there was an insurrection.

Trump incited a riot. Heck Trump conspired to incite a riot in order to maintain the Presidency. Also, OJ murdered his ex-wife. Granted, we didn't have as much coverage of the crimes with OJ.

The issue becomes demonstrating that Trump did this in court... because the GOP covered Trump's ass in the impeachment. Trump did not lead the march. Trump did not say "break into the Capitol". Trump did not say a number of things that can be used in his defense that can successfully muddy the waters.

 

[Shadowy Man]

it is not enough for the state to assert a person committed a criminal act.

They aren't. They are asserting that he committed a disqualifying act, in his bid to become President.

And it wasn’t “asserted”. There was a trial and it was determined from the evidence presented.

Determined based on what standard?

I haven’t read the trial transcript.

But the Constitution sets the parameters for who can run. Trump qualifies based on his age and nation of origin.

Do we really know this? By what standard has it been determined he meets these qualifications? Is this part “self-executing”?

Have we seen his birth certificate?

Come on.

Yes, I’m being facetious here but it does go to the question of how to apply the various qualification rules in the Constitution.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The issue becomes demonstrating that Trump did this in court... because the GOP covered Trump's ass in the impeachment. Trump did not lead the march. Trump did not say "break into the Capitol". Trump did not say a number of things that can be used in his defense that can successfully muddy the waters.

By not acting immediately to defend the Capitol he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. That alone should suffice for disqualification, in my opinion.

 

[Elixir]

The issue becomes demonstrating that Trump did this in court.

Again, the threshold of preponderance of evidence was met and surpassed, regarding the question of whether Trump was an insurrectionist, IN COURTS OF LAW. And it was COURTS OF LAW that let OJ off, not public opinion.
There is no way any court is going to overrule the finding of fact that Trump is an insurrectionist in order to let him in the CO ballot. SCOTUS will find other grounds that the six conservatives can swallow, to let him lose in CO again.

I want to ask you again Jimmy; which way to you think SCOTUS will (unanimously) rule?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The issue becomes demonstrating that Trump did this in court... because the GOP covered Trump's ass in the impeachment. Trump did not lead the march. Trump did not say "break into the Capitol". Trump did not say a number of things that can be used in his defense that can successfully muddy the waters.

By not acting immediately to defend the Capitol he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. That alone should suffice for disqualification, in my opinion.

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such. I think they should. I think he should be found guilty of insurrection, BUT, I think that level of conviction is VERY hard. Which is why Smith isn't even taking that angle. I think I linked a Legal Eagle video that touches on that subject. It is actually very scary what you are allowed to get away with under law.

That said, without a conviction on actions regarding the January 6th riot, it feels like there isn't enough legal backing to reject a person being allowed to run. And I think SCOTUS will say likewise.

Trump shouldn't be allowed to run in 2024 because Congress forbade it, when they impeached him (the second time).

 

[jonatha]

But there still needs to be due process.

There was.

Most of the District Judge's opinion was an analysis of why she concluded Trump violated 14.3

 

[Elixir]

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such.

What you and I feel is irrelevant.
“Conviction” appears nowhere in 14.3.

it feels like there isn't enough legal backing to reject a person being allowed to run. And I think SCOTUS will say likewise.

No, they will not talk about how they feel. They will talk about the facts and the law.
They may well misrepresent one or the other or both the facts and the law, but they won’t waste the Court’s time discussing their feelings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such.

What you and I feel is irrelevant.

Which is why I'm discussing what I think SCOTUS's take will be.

“Conviction” appears nowhere in 14.3.

Neither does the word biscotti.

 

[Elixir]

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such.

What you and I feel is irrelevant.

Which is why I'm discussing what I think SCOTUS's take will be.

“Conviction” appears nowhere in 14.3.

Neither does the word biscotti.

Nobody is demanding biscotti as a prerequisite for disqualification per 14.3.

That I know of, that is. But it would make about as much sense.

Making sense is not the long suit of this SCOTUS though. I doubt, however, that they would leave themselves open to what happens if a conviction occurs before the election, regardless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such.

What you and I feel is irrelevant.

Which is why I'm discussing what I think SCOTUS's take will be.

“Conviction” appears nowhere in 14.3.

Neither does the word biscotti.

Nobody is demanding biscotti as a prerequisite for disqualification per 14.3.

I sure the hell am. Dark chocolate with white chocolate chunks and orange zest.

That I know of, that is. But it would make about as much sense.

No, it wouldn't. One is a double baked cookie, one is a legal thing.

 

[Elixir]

One is a double baked cookie, one is a legal thing.

The salient fact is that neither is required for disqualification per 14.3

I am quite sure that SCOTUS will find something less vulnerable to the whims of justice, with which to disallow the prescription of the 14th. Probably something gossamer to the point of transparency, but more durable than the “conviction” canard.

 

[Politesse]

I feel that a court, a criminal court, needs to find as such.

What you and I feel is irrelevant.

Which is why I'm discussing what I think SCOTUS's take will be.

“Conviction” appears nowhere in 14.3.

Neither does the word biscotti.

Nobody is demanding biscotti as a prerequisite for disqualification per 14.3.

That I know of, that is. But it would make about as much sense.

Making sense is not the long suit of this SCOTUS though. I doubt, however, that they would leave themselves open to what happens if a conviction occurs before the election, regardless.

Exactly. You can't just invent law from the bench in order to suit your feelings. Any ruling they make ought to reflect past rulings. In which case, the decision would be obvious: no such rule exists nor has existed. But since this court has thrown stare decisis out the window, we must simply hope that they keep the future in mind, and the implications of excusing incitement to violence in hope that you will be president before it comes to trial.

 

[Patooka]

Disgusting how Republicans are fundraising on this “partisan attack”, crying to be allowed to violate the constitution because they say “voters say so”.

It might be a good thing because I think you're overlooking some steps. Trump can grift better than any other Republican so he's going to reap the benefits from this donation drive from MAGAtards. And if 2022 is any example, Trump hates sharing his hard earned donations grift money. Factor in Kevin McCarthy walking away and the GOP has donation issues. Which means in 2024, Republicans might be forced to campaign on their ideas and values.

It's a possibility that is predicated on past behaviour at least.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can't just invent law from the bench in order to suit your feelings.

Where have you been these last few years?

 

[ZiprHead]

If the SC was smart they would agree with the Colorado decision and get rid of the Orange Boil on the ass of the country and save the Republican party all in one.

 

[ZiprHead]

Blockbuster OIG Report Details Collusion Between Trump And Rally Organizer For Capitol March

An OIG Report has uncovered stunning evidence of collusion between Trump and January 6 rally organizations to break the law and march on the nation's Capitol. You can read the report HERE. The report evaluates the performance of the United States Park...

www.dailykos.com

An OIG Report has uncovered stunning evidence of collusion between Trump and January 6 rally organizations to break the law and march on the nation's Capitol. You can read the report HERE.
The report evaluates the performance of the United States Park Police (USPP) and National Parks Service (NPS) regarding January 6. These organizations were responsible for issuing rally permits and coordinating with the leadership of rallies to ensure compliance with park rules and an orderly event.
Rally organizers must seek permits for such large protest gatherings. The NPS and USPP then work closely with rally leadership to coordinate public safety. Reading the report provides insight into the surprisingly high level of coordination involved.
In this case the rally organizer, seeking the permit and coordinating with the authorities was Women For America First (WFAF). The WFAF submitted a request to hold a rally at the Ellipse on December 19th, the very day Trump made his tweet, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” The request included a permit to march on the Capitol. The permit to rally at the Ellipse was granted, the request for a permit to march on the Capitol was expressly denied.
Between permit approval for the Ellipse, and January 6th, WFAF repeatedly assured NPS and USPP that there were no plans to march on the Capitol. The agencies repeatedly asked, having heard rumors of such plans, but were explicitly told that was not part of the plan. Those assurances were flat out lies.
In fact, documents establish that WFAF was coordinating with the White House of a march on the Capitol. On January 3d a White House liaison texted to the WFAF that, “POTUS expectations are intimate and then send everyone over to the Capitol.”

 

[ZiprHead]

From the report above.

At 12:25 p.m. on January 3, WFAF sent a widely disseminated email stating, “January 6th is going tobe a historic day. All the rallies in the cold, all of the thousands of miles, and all of the stress has allbeen for SAVE AMERICA from a hostile globalist takeover.

”That same day, a White House liaison sent a text message to the WFAF contractor regarding thePresident’s attendance at WFAF’s January 6 demonstration at the Ellipse. This message stated,“POTUS expectations are intimate and then send everyone over to the Capitol.”71 During her interviewwith Select Committee investigators,72 the White House liaison stated that this text message wasintended to convey to the WFAF contractor that the President expected to have a small stage at theEllipse with a limited number of speakers and that the President planned to call for a march to theU.S. Capitol during his speech at the Ellipse.73 The White House liaison also stated that, because theWhite House controlled the list of speakers at the January 6 demonstration at the Ellipse, WFAF wasconcerned that its speakers would not have the opportunity to address the crowd at the Ellipse and thatWFAF therefore planned to set up another stage outside the Supreme Court for its speakers.

11. January 4: WFAF Tells a Potential Speaker That the President Will Call for a March, andWFAF Requests to Increase the Number of Participants at the Demonstration

On January 4, 2021, the WFAF representative sent a text message to a potential speaker,

75 stating:This stays only between us, we are having a second stage at the Supreme Court againafter the ellipse. POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol . . . It can also notget out about the march because I will be in trouble with the national park service and allthe agencies but POTUS is going to just call for it “unexpectedly[.]”When shown a chain of text messages that included WFAF’s message cited above (see Figure 3 for thecomplete chain), the park ranger for President’s Park told us it “bl[ew her] mind” because the NPS hadrepeatedly asked WFAF whether there would be a march. According to the park ranger for President’sPark, the WFAF representative “was just adamant there was gonna be no march.” In addition, when weshowed the text message to the permit specialist, she told us “we asked [the WFAF representative]repeatedly if she was going to do a march . . . So, um, basically she lied to all of us.” The permitspecialist also told us that WFAF would not have been in trouble with the NPS, despite “hav[ing] beencaught in not telling the truth.” Instead, the permit specialist said the NPS would have asked WFAF formore information about the march to “make sure that things [were] conducted in a safe manner.”

 

[robnisch]

But there still needs to be due process

The process is, the courts decide.
They have so far ruled unanimously that Trump violated 14.3.

Was Jefferson Davis convicted?

 

[Elixir]

But there still needs to be due process

The process is, the courts decide.
They have so far ruled unanimously that Trump violated 14.3.

Was Jefferson Davis convicted?

“He was charged with treason against the United States for his part in leading the states in rebellion during the American Civil War, 1861-1865. But instead proceeding with the trial, federal prosecutors entered a “nolle prosequi,” or statement of decision not to prosecute.”

So, no.
But I don’t think they would have let him run for president. Despite his popularity with The Losers.