Trump barred from being President of Colorado.

So, too, Asian, Latino, black, and Native American men, not to mention white, Asian, Latino, black, and Native American women.

 

No, it was to buy time to uncover suspected wrong doing.

 

There was no time to buy. The count had been certified. The call took place on January 2, the electoral count was to take place on January 6. All court cases had been decided. There was no controversy on the numbers. If Trump thought he had evidence of some kind of fraud the proper venue would have been the courts, not the SoS. At no point in that call did Trump as for "more time", he DID ask that they "find votes".

 

Stop complaining and say WHAT was taken out of context. If I inadvertently did, you will have my apologies. If I did not, I expect YOURS. Indicate WHAT point you were making was altered by being taken out of context. But if you are going to complain about the fact that I only quote the part I respond, don't bother... not interested.

But DO make sure that it's something relevant to the topic.

I believe you are referring to a post in which a poster INSERTED in the quote attributed to me an emoji that was NOT there in the original. THAT is what altering a post looks like.

And, for future reference. I EXPECT you to point out, like I did, if you believe anything was taken out of context. Instead of just complaining about it, SAY what it is and in what way it changed the point you were actually making, and we can just fix it right away.

So? Trump is not being barred from being President for committing a crime.

 

Did nothing illegal. A lot of fishy stuff went on. Can't blame him for trying. Your opinion he did something illegal. Your opinion he committed insurrection. Did you know in spite of the amendment, several Confederates of the Civil War were permitted to serve in the Federal Government? The idea was to sow peace in the Union. Your desires and efforts will almost insure us a Civil War! (that is if allowed, and I doubt it)

 

That's really funny, try that one on the Chinese that built railroads and dams, and the Mexican American's that built ... almost the whole South West. Then there's the old joke about my Italian ancestors that came here thinking the roads were paved with gold only to find out not only weren't they paved, but they would be paving them.

 

h, damn! I edited the wrong post. PDS - my apologies.

Why don't you leave Trump on the ballot and see who else appears? IF Biden was done as wonderfully as you guys claim this time he should win by at least 20 million votes, right? And you'd have four more years to flaunt that as we as four more years of Bidenomics. How can you refuse.

 

Italians are white.....why split hairs? People of all colors built America. Just so happens the "Framers" were white. All colors have benefited so it's time to forget about color and get on with it. Division is a craving for leftists.

 

The Senate Trial is not a criminal trial. So... no!

 

So you are saying a man is not innocent until proven guilty?

 

That's what courts are for. Both sides present their arguments, and the better arguments win. Or, if it goes to the Supreme Court, .... sometimes whoever has the most expensive yacht wins.

Please read my sig! Make sure you understand the most basic elements before participating in a thread. If you don't know how the American court system works, you do research. The discussions are not intended to answer kindergarten-level questions.

 

That's why they were called WOP's clear into my childhood.

I was responding to Pika.

Except tRaitor tRump is the greatest "divider" in our history.

 

He said that the Colorado decision is NOT based on criminality.

 

Read the indictment out of Georgia. Trump did something illegal, specifically a violation of OCGA 16-4-7

A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

In the phone call Trump called upon Raffensperger, "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."

The problem is that the vote total had already been certified by the governor. To change that total would have been a violation of Georgia Code which Raffensperger had taken an oath to uphold

 

We need to change the Constitution before that happens. But the Colorado Supreme Court can't do that. SCOTUS can. But only with a big enough bribe. Maybe they will when they rule in this case. And then, any Democrat involved in an insurrection will be safe. Either that... or they'll have to get a big big yacht.

 

Democrats were told numerous times--and still today, even on this forum--that there is a positive correlation with mail-in voting and voter fraud: the more mail-in voting there is, the more voter fraud there is. It's that simple. The reason why there is a positive correlation has to do with the opportunities for fraud inherent in the system that in-person voting, for example, does not have, such as the tenebrous transmission method.

The 2020 election was vastly different from other elections. Not even for the Spanish flu did we do widespread mail-in voting. At that time, mail-in voting was only done for soldiers serving overseas. Although I am unsure what evidence they had at the time except for common sense, they probably knew that there is a positive correlation between mail-in voting and voter fraud: the more mail-in voting there is, the more voter fraud. That is a simple, inarguable fact. Even the former newspaper the New York Times admitted to this--at least with absentee voting. You had multiple states bypass the legislative process in 2020 to use this ripe-for-fraud process, which was the basis for Texas v. Pennsylvania. However, like with their refusal to hear the appeal of Derek Chauvin, the Supreme Court probably did not want to stoke the wrath of BLM and Antifa, which caused over $2 billion in damages, not to mention over two dozen deaths and over 2,000 police officer injuries in their monthslong rioting. Hell, businesses boarded up in preparation for Election Day. The Supreme Court probably also knew how violent the people on the left are. Recall that one of them was on the hunt to kill Kavanaugh over the, at that time, upcoming decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And let's not forget the systematic censorship that took place during the election. As Time put it, there was "a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information." And the censorship was for truly petty things, like Trump using satire to point to the connection between Biden's relationship between his son and Burisma, and Twitter taking it down. It was so bad that one in six Biden voters would have changed their minds, had they known the information that was suppressed; and that is defended by the Democrats on this forum.

The 2020 election was clearly rigged and clearly different from the other elections that we have had in recent memory--maybe ever. Anyone who pretends that it was an election like any other is full of ****. Full stop.

Because the Democrats were told over and over that the astronomical implementation of mail-in voting would lead to an increase in fraud, philosophically, Democrats would have less justification to say anything was amiss with the 2020 election had Trump been declared the winner, especially under the systemic censorship campaign by Big Tech and the mainstream press, which is absolutely, 100% antithetical to democracy. Depriving people of information to make well-informed decisions in choosing whom to vote for strikes at the very heart of a functioning, well-civilized democracy. And your side wholeheartedly embraced it! Underneath the paper-thin facade of your side's reverence for democracy is pure, shameless Machiavellianism--that is, do whatever necessary to gain or retain power.

 

Just an FYI about your future claims of how the SCOTUS will rule,
They just declined Jack Smiths request to fast track his case against Trump

 

There are two points that should be given much more scrutiny than anyone has provided so far:

1. "What does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment say?

Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...3-explained-colorado-ballot-ruling-rcna130581

2. Donald Trump made a speech to big crowd at the Ellipse by the President's Park, on January 6, 2021. He presented his point of view, and then made his suggestions and recommendations to those in attendance. Now, does that in itself constitute either an "INSURRECTION", or "REBELLION"...?

Trump did not use the powers of Commander-in-Chief to put military forces into action against anyone. In fact, Trump did not command or force anyone to do anything. Where, therefore, is there anything that justifies the supposition that he committed "insurrection" or "rebellion"?!

As an unaffiliated Independent, my personal preference would be that Donald Trump goes home to Florida and plays golf for the rest of his life -- and never makes another run for the presidency! But, should he be FORBIDDEN to run for the presidency, because he made a speech?

 

You're right.
And the SCOTUS will confirm exactly what you have determined.
Hating Trump has become an obstacle for a lot on the left who can't see past what they want.
A ruling confirming what these 4 Justices did would tear this country apart and open doors in every state to make any claim they want to keep candidates off of ballots.
But sadly, most on the left can't see that far

 

And no time to explain why or they'll be late for their yacht trip

 

Meaning it was so ignorant, it wasn't even worth a response.
You don't get to go to the SCOTUS to jump over an appellant court because you are so blinded by hatred you can't figure out for yourself thats not how the law works.
Maybe you should take a yacht trip. lol

 

Heres the explanation for ya

This Court should reject Mr. Smith’s request for certiorari before judgment for the simple reason that he lacks authority to ask for it. Nor does he have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution. Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices.

Neither Smith nor the position of Special Counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the American rule of law—whatever one may think of the defendant or the conduct at issue in the underlying prosecution.

The illegality addressed in this brief started on November 18, 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Smith was appointed “to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity [including former President Donald Trump] violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.” See Off. of the Att’y Gen., “Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel,” Order No. 5559-2022 (Nov. 18, 2022).

Attorney General 1 No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and no entity or person, aside from amici curiae and their counsel, made any monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief. All parties were notified of amici’s intent to file this brief at least seven days before its due date. 2 Garland cited as statutory authority for this appointment 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515, and 533. But none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.

 

Instead of responding to this absurd argument one by one, I thought I'd do it in "bulk"

If you look at everything that has gone on in the course of these demands to remove Trump from the ballot because of his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th A, NONE of them make the argument "Trump has not been convicted of a crime".

Does this mean that the above have come up with some "GENIUS" legal argument that Trump's own attorneys have never though of? Well... maybe... But I think a more likely explanation is that they all picked it up from the same wingnut echo-chamber.

Point is that Trump's attorneys did NOT bother to make that argument because the 14th A doesn't REQUIRE plaintiffs to prove that Trump committed a crime. One of the reasons is that not be allowed to run for President is NOT punitive. It's not a punishment.

So now you know why NOBODY has used this argument before a judge. And it's unlikely they will before SCOTUS (even though SCOTUS might grasp at ANTYHING to justify the ruling we all know has already been payed for).

Remember: NOBODY ... no court, no ruling, not Trump's attorneys... NOBODY has made the argument that Trump has to be convicted before this case can proceed. Because it's a losing argument in court. But it might make you feel better in a Political Forum if it's the ONLY argument you can come up with. It could even feel more intelligent than Trump's attorneys.

So that should be the end of that. If not even Trump's own attorneys are arguing this, why bother with it?

 

No idea what you're talking about. Smith hasn't requested Trump be removed from any ballot.

 

Looks like Smith doesn't even have the authority to represent any case for the US government.
Just another example of Democrat claims swirling the toilet on their way down.
Just like the Colorado ruling.