Trump Disqualified in Colorado

[Doctor Phibes]

This is so dumb. Don't these eejits realise it will win Trump votes?

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

This is so dumb. Don't these eejits realise it will win Trump votes?

They don't care.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

This is so dumb. Don't these eejits realise it will win Trump votes?

They don't care.

I thought it was the Republicans that were stupid. Seems like Democrats are stupiderer.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

This is so dumb. Don't these eejits realise it will win Trump votes?

They don't care.

I thought it was the Republicans that were stupid. Seems like Democrats are stupiderer.

Just self interest. Whoever gets credit for that letter has ambition within her tribe.

[89th]

@LuFins-Dad said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

Did Trump inspire the insurrection? Obviously. Did he participate in it? Nope. Insurrection is different from his election denial and lying and desires to keep the results from being certified by Congress.

Here’s a thought… Maybe it wasn’t an actual insurrection at all… Hell, most of the charges gild for January 6th are unlawful parading. Ooohhh, scary.

I don't think the CO ruling will pass SCOTUS. They'll probably give their decision in late Feb or early March. Either way... I've said it a 1000x. If Obama lost his reelection in 2012 and thousands of BLM-type mob folks stormed the capitol the prevent the certification of Romney winning the election, how would you (the general you) feel? Until I see evidence really supporting the election fraud claims, I have ZERO problem putting the full power of the law against those who refused to accept a free and fair election result. It's sacred to how our country operates and I don't care what side of the election you're on. It started as a parade, and ended in insurrection fueled by Presidential lies.

[Jolly]

Applied selectively, of course.

[89th]

I'm literally doing the opposite of applying it selectively. If Obama did all that in 2012 in a loss to Romney, I'm sure you'd be calling for Congress not to certify Romney's win.

[Jolly]

I believe in what you do not -fairness.

Currently, TPTB are trying to fix this election by every means possible. It's very obvious. Open your eyes.

[Jolly]

And quit sucking the FBI's dick.

[Jolly]

Since the highest form of insurrection is the negation of the sovereignty of the United States (open borders, anyone?), should Biden be taken off of the ballot in Texas? And any other border state?

[89th]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

And quit sucking the FBI's dick.

om nom nom

[taiwan_girl]

Allowing one crime to go unpunished because it previously may not have been prosecuted is a very weak argument.

Im sorry, but saying that President Trump or those who stormed the Capitol should go unpunished because others did nt get in trouble is.... (not sure of the English word, but not an excuse or defense).

[Jolly]

Boils down to a simple concept.

Is there equal justice under the law?

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

Allowing one crime to go unpunished because it previously may not have been prosecuted is a very weak argument.

Im sorry, but saying that President Trump or those who stormed the Capitol should go unpunished because others did nt get in trouble is.... (not sure of the English word, but not an excuse or defense).

So much wrong in what you said.

First of all. Trump is being accused by the press and legislators. They are not the holders of that authority. The Department of Justice is.

Secondly, the DoJ has accused him of many crimes, and indicted him on at least four. None of those are insurrection.

Thirdly, in this country, we have a presumption of innocence. It's the FOUNDATION of our justice system. He is innocent, until he is proven not to be.

Fourthly, the basis for COSC to say that he is guilty of insurrection flies in the face of my third comment, and also relies on "other people's statements." AFAIK (I may be wrong) there are people who claimed that he was "insurrection-ey." Perhaps the district court heard that evidence, so I may be wrong.

Fifth, people who did "get in trouble" were accused by the DoJ, tried and convicted.

Finally, if you feel that he's guilty of a crime, indict, try, convict and punish. Until those things happen, there's no there there.

[George K]

The Washington Post:

Yet these puzzles are relatively mundane compared with the case’s most consequential conundrum: whether Mr. Trump really did engage in insurrection. The Colorado court, armed with dictionary definitions and the defense’s counsel’s own words (according to which Jan. 6 was “more than a riot but less than a rebellion”), lays out the evidence. The armed mob that forcibly entered the Capitol with the purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power, they say, was surely carrying out an insurrection. By fomenting myths of election fraud; by urging supporters at least 12 times to travel to D.C.; by exhorting them to “take back our country” when they arrived; by ignoring pleas to tell them to leave; Mr. Trump “engaged,” they say, in that insurrection, too.

As Justice Samour points out in his dissent, however, what’s missing from the majority’s analysis is due process of law. Not only has Mr. Trump not been convicted of insurrection either by a jury of his peers or from the bench by a judge; he hasn’t even been charged with it. Tellingly, Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith has brought an aggressive case against the former president for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and more — but not for violating the federal law against insurrection. The penalties for that, by the way, include disqualification from “any office under the United States.”

Of course, in the United States, not just anyone can be president. Only aspirants over age 35 who are natural-born citizens may occupy the Oval Office. The difference is that these criteria are objective. Whether someone has engaged in insurrection is less so. Disqualifying a candidate based on an accusation, albeit one blessed by a state court judge as in the Colorado case — but not an actual conviction — is dangerous. What’s to stop a Republican politician from seeking to bar his Democratic opponent because the opponent attended Black Lives Matter protests, claiming that those protests, some of them nominally in service of abolishing the police, qualify as insurrection? To be clear, there is no moral equivalence between Black Lives Matter protesters and the Jan. 6 Capitol mob. But that is the point: the potential for abuse is ample.

[Horace]

Coup by paperwork. More direct and intentional than anything Trump ever did.

[89th]

Stupid question, but why is a criminal conviction required? It just says the person shall not have engaged in insurrection, right? I haven't paid attention to the details here since I presume SCOTUS will overturn this in about two months.

[Jolly]

Trump has never been charged with insurrection.

[Copper]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

Trump has never been charged with insurrection.

But apparently he has been convicted by the Colorado Supreme Court.

[89th]

@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:

Trump has never been charged with insurrection.

That's my question. Does there need to be a charge? For example, if AHNOLD wanted to run for President, would he need to be convicted of not being a natural born citizen before a court can rule him ineligible based on Constitutional requirements?