2 edits
@sonhouse saidCalled it off? You seem to suggest that he (Trump) had some duty to do so? Tell us how we can hold him accountable for Not doing something.
@Metal-Brain
We have told you time and again that is just for plausible deniability in case his coup attempt went south. That is the sum of it, ALL of it. He meant nothing by it and probably doesn't even remember saying it, he is so incompetent.
If he wanted no violence he could have called it off anytime he wanted with just a tweet but no, he grabbed popcorn and watche ...[text shortened]... would hand it over to the FBI and hope you land in jail with no computer to puke out Putin's goals.
"What are you in for, Mac?' "Hell. a judge told me that I didn't do somethng that i did not even know that I was obligated in some way to do!!!" I'm innocent!!!"
@no1marauder saidMarauder interjects the word bloodthirsty into the discussion. That changes the entire tenor, the entire drift, of this 26-page thread.
One thing a court won't say is your fairy tale version of January 6, 2021 innocent protesters set upon by vicious, bloodthirsty cops and forced to reluctantly defend themselves you know by breaking into the Capitol and heading to where the Electoral College certification was to be done.
Your work is cut out for you, guys. Rewrite them posts!! I am just lurking, as I know SCOTUS will clean it up. Reading a good book while everyone hammers away. . The WAGER!!
@no1marauder saidNo one in the true legal interpretations has found an insurrection. Nor has anyone here.
Try reading Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Here it is, one more time:
"Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congres ...[text shortened]... r adopted a wide ranging amnesty for CSA officials and others, so some did later hold public office.
@averagejoe1 saidWrong. Both the trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court did so.
No one in the true legal interpretations has found an insurrection. Nor has anyone here.
@AverageJoe1
You are quibbling about words. Insurrection, coup attempt, all the same thing. Trying to overthrow the duly elected government because Trump SAYS it is rigged and so forth with 60+ court cases telling him he lost and his own people told him he lost and he knows that fact full well but pushed ahead in his zeal to kill democracy anyway and he is still working on it as we speak.
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain Trump is the head snake of the insurrection, coup attempt, whatever you want to call it, PEOPLE DIED so he has blood on his hands as well just for Jan 6 besides the hundred thousand or more when he ignored the Covid crisis for MONTHS.
And you love him.
You and the rest of the Trump cultists have to realize he does not have your interest at heart ONLY getting power and hopefully permanent power.
Be careful what you wish for, you WILL get much more than you bargained for
and I guess you think he is joking when he says he will invoke the insurrection act and use our military to quell protests, a sure sign he could give a rats ass about the constitution. Maybe you all hate the constitution as well, that would explain your slavish devotion to a would be dictator who WILL try to become one for real.
@no1marauder saidThere wasnt a trial, it was a partisan hearing with all democrats and two rinos… co sc is all democrat
Wrong. Both the trial court and the Colorado Supreme Court did so.
yeah it’s been fair hasnt it?
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidIt's already been explained to you there was a five day trial in front of a Colorado District Judge several months ago:
There wasnt a trial, it was a partisan hearing with all democrats and two rinos… co sc is all democrat
yeah it’s been fair hasnt it?
"The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted
five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15."
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Page 13
@sonhouse saidI did read the first sentence. Did someone try to overthrow the government??? Made me think of that famous N Vietnamese tank breaking into govt facility in Saigon. to overthrow the govt or somesuch. Here is a picture for you. Send us similar pictures of Jan6?
@AverageJoe1
You are quibbling about words. Insurrection, coup attempt, all the same thing. Trying to overthrow the duly elected government because Trump SAYS it is rigged and so forth with 60+ court cases telling him he lost and his own people told him he lost and he knows that fact full well but pushed ahead in his zeal to kill democracy anyway and he is still working on ...[text shortened]... that would explain your slavish devotion to a would be dictator who WILL try to become one for real.
A North Vietnamese tank crashes through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon on April 30, 1975. The taking of the palace marked the fall of the U.S.-backed south and the end to a decade of fighting.
@mott-the-hoople saidDid the court give evidence of 100% proof positive evidence of insurrection? In plain english, no couched words?? It was or it wasn't, so if their findings were more than a paragaph, there is some couching going on.
There wasnt a trial, it was a partisan hearing with all democrats and two rinos… co sc is all democrat
yeah it’s been fair hasnt it?
@averagejoe1 saidGee, could you have some of your Fox News legal experts confirm the proceedings that use the "100% proof positive" standard? Or is that something just for King Donald?
Did the court give evidence of 100% proof positive evidence of insurrection? In plain english, no couched words?? It was or it wasn't, so if their findings were more than a paragaph, there is some couching going on.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidthere was a gathering of democrats TWICE…setting up the lawfare guided
It's already been explained to you there was a five day trial in front of a Colorado District Judge several months ago:
"The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted
five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15."
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Page 13
attempt at a coup
scotus will smack them down!
1 edit
@no1marauder saidstate courts do not have the authority to determine if an insurrection occurred, only congress holds that power
Gee, could you have some of your Fox News legal experts confirm the proceedings that use the "100% proof positive" standard? Or is that something just for King Donald?
the way you want it is for democrat judges to determine who the people can vote for
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's not what the Constitution says nor is it how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied after the Civil War; those who engaged in the rebellion were disqualified from public office without any need for an individualized finding against each.
state courts do not have the authority to determine if an insurrection occurred, only congress holds that power
the way you want it is for democrat judges to determine who the people can vote for
State courts are obliged to follow the Constitution:
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So the Colorado judges had every authority to make such a finding, your ignorance of basic Constitutional principles notwithstanding.
The Constitution makes it so anyone under 35 years old, or not a natural born citizen or who hasn't been a resident of the United States for 14 years can't be President either. The disqualification for those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion is no different; they all restrict "who the people can vote for". Should the SCOTUS strike those down, too?
2 edits
@no1marauder said“ So the Colorado judges had every authority to make such a finding, your ignorance of basic Constitutional principles notwithstanding.”
That's not what the Constitution says nor is it how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied after the Civil War; those who engaged in the rebellion were disqualified from public office without any need for an individualized finding against each.
State courts are obliged to follow the Constitution:
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the U ...[text shortened]... ifferent; they all restrict "who the people can vote for". Should the SCOTUS strike those down, too?
no, they dont have the authority.
Read ALL the 14 amendment, dont cherry pick the part you want to hear.
14th amendment section 5 explains who can enforce.
“ The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
and yes, the states are bound to follow constitutional law.
2 edits
14th amendment does not include the president and vice president.
“ Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii