Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Renauda said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Voice of experience, eh?
You would know, eh?
Just following your lead. I understand the nights are long and cold in Alberta.
My lead? Ha! Trump’s been boning the US since Oral Roberts was a cowboy. Betcha y’all knowed that too.
-
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Take the red pill: The election was rigged.
Take the blue pill: The erection was rigid.
-
Nope. Haven't kept up with Trump's boning. Nice to know you have a hobby.
Everybody needs one.
-
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.
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
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.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
-
@89th said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
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.
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
Keep in mind this was written with the confederacy in mind. With very few exceptions, the US neither convicted nor charged the 1,000,000 or so former confederate soldiers yet this amendment applied to all of them and everyone knew it at the time.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of these moves and consider the law to be unworkably vague without enabling legislation from congress. Especially the second part - if ‘insurrection’ is vague, surely ‘providing aid or comfort’ to an enemy is worse.
I’m pretty sure the court will shut this down. I hope they do.
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Yes.
This is the foundation of TDS.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
@George-K said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
There doesn’t need to be a charge or a conviction.
"You participated in an insurrection! You can't hold office!"
"No I didn't!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
Is that how it works? You can enact this because you think someone did something?
Again I think it’s unworkable and shouldn’t be used. But it was never envisioned to require a conviction or a charge. It was US policy (generally) not to charge confederate veterans, yet everyone knew this was written to exclude them from office, including those veterans themselves.
-
From a strictly scholarly point of discussion, wouldn’t the 14th have disqualified the first 10 Presidents or so?
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
No it has to be an act of insurrection against the US.
Well, technically they have to have led a FAILED insurrection….
-
Bill Barr:
https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-banning-trump-from-the
I am firmly opposed to Trump’s candidacy. While I think it is critical the Biden administration be beaten at the polls, Trump is not the answer. He is not capable of winning the decisive victory Republicans need to advance conservative principles. And his truculent, petty, and toxic persona—unconstrained by any need to face the voters again—will damage the country.
But I also believe that the efforts to knock him off the ballot are legally untenable, politically counterproductive, and, most ominously, destructive of our political order. The Supreme Court needs to act swiftly to strike down these foolish decisions.
...in present-day America, under existing law, the only way to disqualify someone under Section Three is through criminal prosecution under Section 2383. The federal government, which has painstakingly examined the events of January 6, has not charged President Trump with insurrection or even incitement.
Even if, contrary to this analysis, Section Three is self-executing and states are free to adopt their own ad hoc enforcement procedures, Colorado’s and Maine’s actions do not pass legal muster.
An individual must be afforded due process before the government can deprive him of an important right—like the right to pursue public office.What is especially concerning in the Trump case is that the states are permitting disqualification based on mere preponderance of the evidence, whereas the enforcement mechanism enacted by Congress—prosecution for insurrection—requires a criminal conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The higher standard of proof is essential in this context because a political figure is being punished in connection with activities that, absent a finding of wrongful intent, lie at the heart of the First Amendment: challenging election results. Allowing states to make these decisions based on a lower evidentiary standard will have a serious chilling effect on legitimate election challenges in the future.
If Trump is to be held legally accountable for his actions on January 6, 2021, it should be through the pending federal prosecution that focuses on those actions. Period.
-
-
Trump files a brief.
Intersting read at Althouse.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/01/lets-read-trumps-brief-filed-yesterday.html#more
If you read nothing else, read the last paragraphs in the post:
How did the Colorado courts determine that Trump "engage[d] in insurrection"? There was the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (which Trump unsuccessfully attempted to exclude based on hearsay). And there was "testimony from Peter Simi, a sociology professor, whom the district court qualified as an expert on political extremism and 'the communication styles of far-right political extremists.'"
The district court found that President Trump intended to incite violence on January 6, 2021, by relying on Simi’s analysis of President Trump’s purported “history with political ex- tremists,” as well as Simi’s opinion that President Trump “developed and employed a coded language based in doublespeak that was understood between himself and far-right extremists, while maintaining a claim to ambiguity among a wider audience.”
The district court wrote:
As Professor Simi testified, Trump’s speech took place in the context of a pattern of Trump’s knowing “encouragement and promotion of violence” to develop and deploy a shared coded language with his violent supporters. An understanding had developed between Trump and some of his most extreme supporters that his encouragement, for example, to “fight” was not metaphorical, referring to a political “fight,” but rather as a literal “call to violence” against those working to ensure the transfer of Presidential power.... Trump understood the power that he had over his supporters.
Simi relied exclusively on public speeches and the January 6th report to opine on these reactions to President Trump’s words; he conducted no research, interviews, or fieldwork of his own. Simi also disclaimed any opinion on President Trump’s intent or state of mind.Yet the district court used Simi’s testimony to support its factual finding that President Trump intended to incite violence despite Simi’s concession that he could not testify to President Trump’s intent or state of mind....
But this Court should not allow a candidate’s eligibility for the presidency to be determined or in any way affected by testimony from a sociology professor who claims an ability to decipher “coded” messages. The fact remains President Trump did not commit or participate in the unlawful acts that occurred at the Capitol, and this Court cannot tolerate a regime that allows a candidate’s eligibility for office to hinge on a trial court’s assessment of dubious expert-witness testimony or claims that President Trump has powers of telepathy....
-
Oral Arguments this AM:
-
I am semi listening to that. Thanks for the link. Quite interesting to hear something like that. (Not just this case, but how the Supreme Cort works.)
