@averagejoe1 saidTrue. He doesn't need no stinking conviction. He is like the sheriff that doesn't need no stinking badges. SCOTUS will overturn it. He is just in denial.
Marauder the Bot will not respond in kind to our points made in these last several posts
The irony is that after falsely blaming Trump for election interference for years they are clamoring for this election interference. I am still waiting on no1 to tell me how that word is verified to be true without a conviction. All he has is "the CO SC said so" and he thinks that is good enough......until it happens to a democrat. LOL!
He has fooled himself into believing this will only hurt one party. That takes some serious self deception.
@metal-brain saidNo, the Constitution says so.
True. He doesn't need no stinking conviction. He is like the sheriff that doesn't need no stinking badges. SCOTUS will overturn it. He is just in denial.
The irony is that after falsely blaming Trump for election interference for years they are clamoring for this election interference. I am still waiting on no1 to tell me how that word is verified to be true without a ...[text shortened]... fooled himself into believing this will only hurt one party. That takes some serious self deception.
@no1marauder
The Constitution says "so".
Like the Peter Gabriel album.
What word was that you said was in the constitution that you so humbly asserted you knew was meant by the framers?
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
don’t lie, there was not any trial
paragraph3 on page 7 states clearly: "the district court conducted a five-day trial"
And before you move the goal post (from "not any" to "I meant before the surpeme court of Colorado"😉: page 14: "we held oral argument". Now we can go down to wrestle about if that constitutes atrial. But the "not any" part has disproved. Any further comment?
If I read something from a supreme court signed by professional judges or hear the opinion by @mott-the-hoople on legal proceedings, whom should I believe?
@mott-the-hoople saidLibs really want crime to be illegal now.
Liberals and their desire for democracy…kick the opponent of the ballot 😂
you fukin idiots
This country, man. Thanks a lot Brandon.
1 edit
@ponderable saidso, “marerider”and “ponderable” are the same poster? hmmm
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
paragraph3 on page 7 states clearly: "the district court conducted a five-day trial"
And before you move the goal post (from "not any" to "I meant before the surpeme court of Colorado"😉: page 14: "we held oral argument". Now we can go down to wrestle about if that co ...[text shortened]... essional judges or hear the opinion by @mott-the-hoople on legal proceedings, whom should I believe?
and no, the co sc did not hold any trial
@Mott-The-Hoople
"Justice Carlos Samour took particular issue with how the proceedings unfolded. He argued that Trump hasn't been charged under a statute that would bar him from office for engaging in an insurrection, so he hasn't had the constitutional rights that would have been afforded him as a criminal defendant.
"There was no fair trial either," Samour wrote, pointing to Trump not having the opportunity to request a jury of his peers. "I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn't resemble anything I've seen in a courtroom."
Samour also took issue with the district court's handling of the case. He disagreed with the district court not allowing experts to be deposed and the decision to limit expert testimony. He likened the case to fitting a square peg into a round hole, which the district court allowed, writing that it was a "procedural Frankenstein."
"In my view, what transpired in this litigation fell woefully short of what due process demands," Samour wrote.
https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-supreme-court-justices-defend-trump-there-was-no-fair-trial-1853968
@mott-the-hoople saidIn fact: no I am a German citizen and a chemist by profession. And No1 Marauder, whose name you seem to be unable to write correctly, differ in some aspects.
so, “marerider”and “ponderable” are the same poster? hmmm
You should habve posted: "Yes I lied (as according to standards I apply to others"
@ponderable saidsure 😂
In fact: no I am a German citizen and a chemist by profession. And No1 Marauder, whose name you seem to be unable to write correctly, differ in some aspects.
You should habve posted: "Yes I lied (as according to standards I apply to others"
@no1marauder saidYou don't believe the SCOTUS will let that decision stand, do you?
No, the Constitution says so.
It seems like Trump haters are unwittingly helping Trump. sh76 is right when he says this will make Trump more popular than ever. I said the same thing. That definition of insanity keeps coming to mind. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Democrats are like a dog that chases cars. It wouldn't know what to do with it if it caught it. Even when dogs chase poultry they don't know what to do with it after they kill it. The fun is over. The dog might nudge the chicken with it's paw hoping it will run again for another chase. Dogs rarely eat a chicken after they kill it.
What will you do if you get Trump? Your fun will be over. Will you look for another republican to chase? Will you want to get Nikki next? Will it be as satisfying?
2 edits
@metal-brain saidI think they will not hear it.
You don't believe the SCOTUS will let that decision stand, do you?
It seems like Trump haters are unwittingly helping Trump. sh76 is right when he says this will make Trump more popular than ever. I said the same thing. That definition of insanity keeps coming to mind. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
Democrats are like a dog tha ...[text shortened]... you look for another republican to chase? Will you want to get Nikki next? Will it be as satisfying?
Even in the dissenting opinion, the conservative Colorado judges were like "yeah, he definitely participated in an insurrection, but we don't think it's our place to omit him from the primary ballot." There's some ticky tacky rules like the court must issue a ruling "no later than 48 hours after the hearing" and they missed the deadline.
I hear the emotional angle from mott and Joe etc. The persecution of trump by the unseen elites hiding in ivory bunkers. But then there's reality.
The conservative arguments are pretty weak in a legal sense.
@metal-brain saidGuns are not necessary to be guilty of committing sedition or insurrection, call it what you will. Engaging false electors would be sufficient; causing voting machines to be seized and breached would be sufficient; threatening a state election official with legal action if he didn't "find" votes would be sufficient; inciting people to march upon the Capitol and interfere with the lawful procedure of transferring power to the correctly elected candidate would be sufficient, to return such a verdict.
Why did they forget to bring guns?
Were they going to overthrow the government with their kung fu kill moves?
We don't need no stinking guns to overthrow a country. We will karate chop them to death.
@mott-the-hoople saidAppellate Courts don't hold trials; the trial was at the district Court as per Colorado law.
so, “marerider”and “ponderable” are the same poster? hmmm
and no, the co sc did not hold any trial