The state court of CO has rendered a verdict:
a) Trump engaged in an insurrection, but
b) The 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from holding office does not apply to presidents, and
c) Trump's name may appear on the ballot in the state of CO.
A truly bizarre verdict, sure to be appealed. This ain't over yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@moonbus saidHe engaged in insurrection?
The state court of CO has rendered a verdict:
a) Trump engaged in an insurrection, but
b) The 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from holding office does not apply to presidents, and
c) Trump's name may appear on the ballot in the state of CO.
A truly bizarre verdict, sure to be appealed. This ain't over yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html
The court just declared him guilty without a trial?
That is bizarre.
Without a guilty verdict these attempts to remove Trump from the ballot are futile.
Innocent until proven guilty. By that metric, Trump is (legally) innocent since he's only been indicted. If that indictment turns into a guilty verdict then they should pursue removing his name from state ballots, not before.
The verdict for Jan 6th, whether guilty or innocent, probably won't come in time to remove him from 2024 ballots.
@jj-adams saidThat was a trial; a civil one to be sure, but Trump was represented by counsel who could and did call witnesses, present evidence and make closing arguments. https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07
He engaged in insurrection?
The court just declared him guilty without a trial?
That is bizarre.
@moonbus saidThe article doesn't mention why she believes the insurrection clause doesn't apply to presidents. Even if Trump is convicted, she could set a precedent where a guilty verdict doesn't matter.
The state court of CO has rendered a verdict:
a) Trump engaged in an insurrection, but
b) The 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from holding office does not apply to presidents, and
c) Trump's name may appear on the ballot in the state of CO.
A truly bizarre verdict, sure to be appealed. This ain't over yet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/17/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-14th-amendment-insurrection/index.html
@vivify saidAs already discussed, numerous Confederate officials were barred from office without the necessity of a criminal conviction:
Without a guilty verdict these attempts to remove Trump from the ballot are futile.
Innocent until proven guilty. By that metric, Trump is (legally) innocent since he's only been indicted. If that indictment turns into a guilty verdict then they should pursue removing his name from state ballots, not before.
The verdict for Jan 6th, whether guilty or innocent, probably won't come in time to remove him from 2024 ballots.
"Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors. This fact is consistent with Section 3’s text, legislative history, and precedent, all of which make clear that a criminal conviction for any offense is not required for disqualification. Section 3 is not a criminal penalty, but rather is a qualification for holding public office in the United States that can be and has been enforced through civil lawsuits in state courts, among other means. "
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
The Judge's decision that says the Amendment bans an insurrectionist from being a local post master but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
@vivify saidA summary is here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/17/colorado-district-court-holds-that-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-does-not-apply-to-trump/
The article doesn't mention why she believes the insurrection clause doesn't apply to presidents. Even if Trump is convicted, she could set a precedent where a guilty verdict doesn't matter.
I find such reasoning unpersuasive in the extreme esp. when it is accompanied by language like "it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath."
This is elevating picayune tea leaf reading over obvious plain meaning.
@no1marauder saidThank you for posting this.
As already discussed, numerous Confederate officials were barred from office without the necessity of a criminal conviction:
"Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the crimi ...[text shortened]... t from being a local post master but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
@no1marauder saidIt appears that tRump is having difficulty getting credible lawyers to represent him these days. I found the defence's argument irrelevant and even arrogantly galling, that the case should be thrown out on the grounds that tRump is the current front runner for the nomination of his party. I mean, seriously?! This cannot be legally relevant to the clause in question, how popular or unpopular the candidate is. Quite apart from the fact that he could be the least popular one tomorrow, given a particularly damning revelation in the press or from the FBI (as happened to Hilary Clinton in the last lap of the 2016 campaign).
As already discussed, numerous Confederate officials were barred from office without the necessity of a criminal conviction:
"Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the crimi ...[text shortened]... t from being a local post master but not from being President of the United States is a bizarre one.
@vivify saidBizarre indeed. Maybe the state judge thought it was beyond her competence to rule on a federal election issue. I dunno, but given that the judge found credible evidence of tRump's having engaged in insurrection to stay in federal office illegally, I really do not understand why the judge thinks the defendant 'legally fit' to stand for the same office again.
The article doesn't mention why she believes the insurrection clause doesn't apply to presidents. Even if Trump is convicted, she could set a precedent where a guilty verdict doesn't matter.
@jj-adams saidWe all saw it on TV.
He engaged in insurrection?
The court just declared him guilty without a trial?
That is bizarre.
Did you ever hear his speech at the ellipse that morning?
And him wanting the metal detectors turned off because several gun-wielding dudes stopped by the metal detectors "aren't here for me".
@no1marauder saidThe Amendment states "an officer of the United States".
A summary is here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/17/colorado-district-court-holds-that-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment-does-not-apply-to-trump/
I find such reasoning unpersuasive in the extreme esp. when it is accompanied by language like "it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a pe ...[text shortened]... n the Presidential Oath."
This is elevating picayune tea leaf reading over obvious plain meaning.
It clearly applies to presidents.
Obvious and plain meaning, indeed.
@suzianne saidHere are excerpts from the CO judge’s ruling:
We all saw it on TV.
Did you ever hear his speech at the ellipse that morning?
And him wanting the metal detectors turned off because several gun-wielding dudes stopped by the metal detectors "aren't here for me".
Wallace determined that Trump “actively primed the anger of his extremist supporters” and “acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol.”
She also found that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means.”
If that isn’t “aiding and abetting insurrection“ I don’t know what is. It’s a bombshell ruling. It’s going to be discussed and revised, at the highest levels, I’m sure.
@vivify saidThe Amendment doesn't say convicted, or even charged.
Without a guilty verdict these attempts to remove Trump from the ballot are futile.
Innocent until proven guilty. By that metric, Trump is (legally) innocent since he's only been indicted. If that indictment turns into a guilty verdict then they should pursue removing his name from state ballots, not before.
The verdict for Jan 6th, whether guilty or innocent, probably won't come in time to remove him from 2024 ballots.
It says "shall have engaged in".
No conviction necessary. That's how serious the founders thought insurrection was as a disqualifier.
@JJ-Adams
The judge clearly did not want to the one to change history so used the excuse to not bar him by saying POTUS oath of office did not use the same language as other officials, that oath does not say SUPPORT the constitution, but DEFEND the constitution, which sounds like a cop out, not much difference between those two words but that was the logic she used to pass it on to the Colorado supreme court and the legal analysis of what happens if they run it up the ladder to, they think the SCOTUS will just bounce it back to the states, no comment or some such.
Pronounced guilty without a trial? She analyzed all the evidence and it came out as basically her opinion he was and is an insurrectionist and no amount of mewling on your part will change that.
He WAS, IS and WILL BE an insurrectionist and if he gets in as POTUS again he has already said what he will do, screw policy, that would be the furthest thing on what is left of his mind, he will go full throttle into revenge, did you think he was kidding when he said 'I will be YOUR retribution'?
Not YOUR retribution but TRUMP'S retribution and he laid that out clearly with the UNIVISION interview which I don't know if you saw that one but that is the interview that has put a lot of hispanics on Trump's side, the CEO's and other officers of Univision were right there in the studio and he very obviously sucked up to Hispanics and they bought it hook line and sinker.
So he is in absolute fact a dictator in waiting and that means disaster for the US AND the world much as you think he is above the law and your personal god king.
Good luck with that after you figure out you were totally wrong about him, you can't right now even imagine Trump as even WANTING to be dictator and chucking the constitution but that will be what he will do, he already said in public if he is elected he WILL invoke the insurrection act and use our military to attack protesters and then so much for the constitutional right to assembly.
I can only assume you are ok with ALL of that, maybe you figure you can suck up to him and his crones to get a nice fat position on the new dictator work force, maybe do what you want to do all along, kill liberals.