Trump Disqualified in Colorado
-
-
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.)
-
I listened to an interview with David French recently. He's of the opinion that keeping Trump from the ballot via lawfare is less destabilizing than letting him run. So that's where one mainstream cultural conservative is at. I guess he represents millions.
Of course, there's zero chance any such claim can be established to any degree of certainty. The only certain thing is that the precedent is novel, and will be reused in the future. The claim is only a gut feeling, shared by millions of weak minded TDS sufferers, safe in the mob they are surrounded by.
-
She seemed skeptical in her questioning
-
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
What's the end result in the long run?
Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
What's the end result in the long run?
Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?
If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.
-
Another 2 cents...I can't remember Trump thumbing his nose and ignoring a court decision, Scream, kick, curse, appeal, use every piece of legal tactic available and be dragged to compliance, but he complied.
The Biden Administration seems like they can ignore what they don't like.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
Another 2 cents...I can't remember Trump thumbing his nose and ignoring a court decision, Scream, kick, curse, appeal, use every piece of legal tactic available and be dragged to compliance, but he complied.
The Biden Administration seems like they can ignore what they don't like.
How so?
-
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
What's the end result in the long run?
Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?
Yeah it’ll be dead, assuming at least 5 sign on to the same reasoning that kills it, such as the enabling legislation argument. Which I think they will.
-
@Horace said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@Jolly said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
@jon-nyc said in Trump Disqualified in Colorado:
I think it will be unanimous-light. Same result with different reasoning. Some will say it requires enabling legislation. Others will point to technicalities in the wording (eg definition of ‘officer’), etc.
What's the end result in the long run?
Does this eternally squelch this legal argument?
If Trump had been a lot more serious in his attempt to steal our democracy via paperwork filed by faithless electors, it would have gotten to the Supreme Court and shot down summarily. So the fact that SCOTUS will actually have to shoot this down summarily, means that the anti-Trump crowed made a more legit attempt at subverting our Democracy via paperwork, than Trump ever did. Those are just facts. Or, they will be, when SCOTUS shits on this attempt.
This is just wrong. He attempted to overturn an election. These two states attempted to keep a single name off a ballot.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr
