@suzianne saidI don't believe everything Trump and Putin says, just the things that are verifiably true. Liars don't lie all of the time. Trump said they stole Syria's oil. That was true.
You are nothing but an embarassment to humanity. And considering how many fools believe Trump and Putin over nearly everyone else, that's really saying something.
Trump is an honest liar.
Are you still calling words actions? What actions did Trump take that was an insurrection?
@suzianne saidWhy do you think that is? Every time something like this happens the more people want to vote for him. It isn't a secret recipe. Trump + Law-fare = great poll numbers
And what is horrifying to normal Americans is that their demagogue is running again and ahead in every poll.
It's like 1935 all over again.
Since the Biden administration keeps cooking up the same recipe he must want Trump to get a second term. Don't tell me Biden doesn't know it boosted Trump's poll numbers every time. He knows what he is doing. He is helping Trump on purpose. This is no accident.
The establishment is merely pretending to fight Trump. Look at all the media attention Trump gets from these series of so called accidental poll boosts.
@no1marauder saidYou can let me know if you disagree, but I don't think they can reverse based on those technicalities. Those are Article III jurisdictional requirements that would seemingly only apply to federal courts, not state courts.
Likely.
If they do and reverse, I say it's likely they do so on grounds that do not address the legal meaning of the Section, relying on the "political questions" doctrine or standing or some such dodge.
1 edit
Kim Iversen claims republicans got Trump banned from the primary ballot.
https://odysee.com/@KimIversen:d/shocking-republicans-are-behind-the:c
The GOP needs to backhand some of their own for being deep state goons.
@metal-brain saidIs there any wild conspiracy theory that you won't believe?
Kim Iversen claims republicans got Trump banned from the primary ballot.
https://odysee.com/@KimIversen:d/shocking-republicans-are-behind-the:c
The GOP needs to backhand some of their own for being deep state goons.
@metal-brain saidthe co sc is ALL democrats
I didn't say I believed it. I said Kim Iversen made the claim. But why are you calling it a conspiracy theory? Kim said most of the Colorado SC are republicans. Are you claiming that is not true?
@Mott-The-Hoople
It was a 4-3 decision. 3 democrats voted against the ban? I am skeptical.
What is your source of information?
@sh76 saidGood point, actually both those doctrines would argue against Federal Court review.
You can let me know if you disagree, but I don't think they can reverse based on those technicalities. Those are Article III jurisdictional requirements that would seemingly only apply to federal courts, not state courts.
But what's left to reverse on? They aren't supposed to override a State's highest court determination on State law or a trial Court's factual findings.Are they really going to claim that the Section isn't self-executing or the President isn't an officer of the United States or a criminal conviction is required? All those seem absurd given the historical record.
So what's your take?
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople
It was Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that brought the Colorado case. They are the a holes behind it. CREW aggressively targeted the Donald Trump administration, filing its first lawsuit against Trump three days after his inauguration as U.S. president.
The justices were all appointed by Democratic governors so maybe you are right, but that would mean 3 of them did not have their heads up their asses like the other justices.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2
@metal-brain saidLMAO! You are calling the Republican primary voters who started the lawsuit "deep state goons" and then wondering why you're being called out for believing a "conspiracy theory"?
I didn't say I believed it. I said Kim Iversen made the claim. But why are you calling it a conspiracy theory? Kim said most of the Colorado SC are republicans. Are you claiming that is not true?
All 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats, so Mott is probably right (broken clock 2 times a day).
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWhat are you talking about?
LMAO! You are calling the Republican primary voters who started the lawsuit "deep state goons" and then wondering why you're being called out for believing a "conspiracy theory"?
All 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats, so Mott is probably right (broken clock 2 times a day).
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) started the lawsuit.
3 democrats on that state SC voted against it. Nearly half of democrats knew it was wrong. The other 4 had their heads up their asses. Insurrectionists bring guns. Only an idiot would call that an insurrection. Even the FBI said it was not an insurrection. 4 democrats know better than the FBI?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
@metal-brain saidI realize you have no understanding of law, but they had to get Republican primary voters to be plaintiffs to have standing.
What are you talking about?
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) started the lawsuit.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIs that why Kim Iversen said it was started by mostly republicans?
I realize you have no understanding of law, but they had to get Republican primary voters to be plaintiffs to have standing.
The FBI said it was not an insurrection. 4 democrats know better than the FBI?
Was this evidence brought up in the trial?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
@no1marauder saidThe only two grounds I can think of are construction of the insurrection clause and freedom of political speech (or some mushy combination thereof).
Good point, actually both those doctrines would argue against Federal Court review.
But what's left to reverse on? They aren't supposed to override a State's highest court determination on State law or a trial Court's factual findings.Are they really going to claim that the Section isn't self-executing or the President isn't an officer of the United States or a criminal conviction is required? All those seem absurd given the historical record.
So what's your take?
Of course, we all know that if they want to, they'll find a way. And it seems likely that they would want to in this case.