Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Those taking my guns are now bible-beating the constitution. Next, they will start saying things like "The rule of law!"

 

No, "based" on an action (or actions) he, tRaitor tRump, engaged in.

 

My legal opinion is based on the LAW and it is not being followed here. Way to make assumptions about people you don't know (STRANGE!)

Is this where I get to pretend to know whats in a strangers mind like you did? OK

YOUR "LEGAL OPINION" IS BASED SOLEY ON YOUR UNCONDITIONAL HATE FOR TRUMP. (wow that was easy! no wonder you people do that all the time)

I didn't say INSURRECTION, I said any ACCUSATION. I'm gonna take a wild guess here and assume (since you set the precedent that is OK to do) that based soley on your unconditional hatred for trump it got in your way to read my post thoroughly. That's OK, but please pay more attention next time before replying to things.
Thank you and good day!!!

 

Ahhh looky here maybe for the first time in your history on this board you're starting to understand why political party opinions should never ever outweigh the will of the people. It's only what our country was founded on and the reason we are free today. Hitler would be proud of the lefties in this thread, that should tell you all you need to know.

 

Huh?
Where did you come up with that Misguided/Misinformed Bullshit?
People ARE convicted of crimes WITHOUT a Jury...
Have you ever heard of a Bench Trial?
In federal court, there is a 38% chance of bench trial acquittal (12% of all federal criminal trials are bench trials while 88% are jury trials),

 

You forgot to mention this:

Appeals court says 1872 amnesty law can’t be applied to pro-Trump insurrectionists


https://www.the-independent.com/new...-cawthorn-14th-amendment-ballot-b2086551.html

Sorry

 

And what are those actions claimed to be? Insurrection/rebellion. CRIMES. True or false? Be honest.

 

Look at how they cleverly tried to take legal terms completely out of it and use the word "action". They think they are slick but its easy to see this stuff a mile away. They don't even try to use the word "allegedly" anymore, lol

 

Some of them are more partisan than others. I would say Roberts is the least partisan of the right side - willing to call things as he sees it regardless of politics. They're not partisan or appointed based only upon their ethnicity, but it would be fair to say they were chosen over other equally qualified candidates in part due to these attributes.

 

What's even more strange is one complaining about the other side gerrymandering, some how doesn't have a problem when their side gerrymanders. Pot meet f'ing kettle.

 

Oh now you're playing dirty!

 

How can they apply a standard that is not based on a criminal standard, when talking explicitly about whether or not Trump engaged in a crime? Like it or not, "Insurrection" and "Rebellion" IS a crime. There is no valid way you can apply any other standard. And you cannot truthfully claim that they are not saying he was guilty of a crime when they explicitly said that he committed those acts. Acts which ARE crimes. No matter how you slice it. No matter how you try to spin it. Telling someone, anyone, or a group of people, that X person committed the act of <insert crime here> is telling them that they committed a crime. By telling someone that you are telling people that X person is guilty of that crime. There is no two ways out of that. No matter how much you twist and spin.

 

PROVE he led an insurrection. There is only one way to do so in our justice system.

 

Then you can provide any ruling that has changed the 2nd amendment in any way?

Its not like its some great secret. Searching for the word shall in the Constitution will give you hundreds of returns.
Its always been the go to word in the Constitution for its legal references.

OMG, There is no such thing as being acquitted of impeachment. You have to be acquitted of the charges. If that were true than you couldn't ever claim he was impeached. Jesus dude. Wake up.
Would you like the video of the Senate judge stating Trump is acquitted of insurrection?
How do you not know this? Are you just ignoring the facts to push a false narrative, or do you honestly have no clue?

So you can watch the video around the 11-12 minute mark where the Senate judge states,
Donald John Trump is acquitted of the charge in said article.

I didn't claim that, What I said was the 14th is backed up with the 5th and other references all claiming the same thing

Just wow, what is it about you and attempted word cherry picking? Can you read for yourself what the 6th states?
Do I have to actually walk you through each word? You just posted the same thing I did, then claimed its not what the 6th says?
Ok, here is elementary English lesson 101

Did I not post
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay.
You couldn't tell those both say the same thing?

Did I not post
the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
You couldn't tell those both say the same thing? Thats a real comprehension problem.

Starting to see a real pattern here.

No judge can make that adjudication without a jury trial (with a conviction) or a former conviction as they would use it against every president in history they don't like.
Which is what the Constitution says
Which is what the 3 Democrat dissenting Judges said
Which is what 91 other justices wouldn't touch it
Which is what the SCOTUS will state.
They don't play your word games and claim they didn't know a Senate Federal Judge acquitted Trump of all charges in his impeachment trial by the Senate.

Says the poster who didn't know Trump was acquitted of charges in his impeachment, and couldn't tell the difference between what I posted and what the 6th amendment says.

 

To remove a candidate from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, he must have participated in an insurrection or given comfort to its perpetrators.

 

It is possible to engage in fraud without being guilty of the crime of fraud.

This is really simple.

You just want to excuse Trump for anything and everything he does. You’re living proof of what he said about shooting someone on 5th avenue.

 

Lol, that would true of the victim

 

So you just posted the 6th amendment that guarantee's you can't convict anyone of a crime without a jury. then in another post you say its not true?

Do you even comprehend what the 6th says?
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

So show us where it states that a judge can overrule these rights and convict people of crimes.

I'll wait while you figure this out

 

Got any examples of participation and comforting?

Did he send a food wagon or something?

 

So in your minds eye the government can hold you accountable for fraud without proving that you committed fraud?

You're living proof lefties don't give a damn about the Constitution, or Justice, or right and wrong and are willing to throw those things out the window in order to win.

 

Them damn Roman numerals get you every time..

 

I think its those Trumpy goggles they past out.
Makes common English a real task for some.
Magically acquitted now doesn't mean not guilty because it doesn't say innocent.
This is the new Democrat at large

 

Supreme Court of the United States is coming for you Colorado.

 

I thought we would heard he made some of the signs with that magic marker the L people made such a big deal about

 

"Hitler would be proud of lefties"? What tells me all I need to know is how disingenuous you are to pull a quote out of context from days before and then twist it to mean something other that it's original meaning.